For many years, I have longed to see a James Bond series actually based on the books. While some of the Bond films have been a lot of fun, most have practically nothing to do with the great Ian Fleming novels. Sadly, in a few cases (such as YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE), about the only similarity between the books and the movies were the titles!

In fact, the original CASINO ROYALE was a horrid film in practically every way except for the music. While some of the characters were retained, the movie was an abysmal mess--a very high budget and confusing mess. It was purported to be a comedy, though practically none of the film was funny and like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, the plot was impossible to follow and bore no similarity to the book. Fans of Ian Fleming usually twitch with disgust at even hearing the title of this god-awful film--thank goodness someone FINALLY wanted to do the Fleming novel some justice!

In the books, Bond was a bourbon drinking, chain-smoking assassin. CASINO ROYALE was the first book and Bond was his most human in it. In the book, Bond struggled with guilt over the many people he'd killed--and they were NOT killed in crazy and exotic ways like they were in most of the movies. Most were either shot or killed with his bare hands. Bond was, above all else, a killer--not quite as sexy or sophisticated as he was in the films. While Craig isn't quite the same as Fleming's Bond (he's missing the scar down his cheek), he's much closer to the novels than any prior Bond incarnation. I miss that Bond and am glad that, in part, the new CASINO ROYALE finally features much of this cold-blooded and flawed character.

Now I do understand that EON Productions couldn't repeat the novel completely--heck, it was set in the early 1950s and many allowances needed to be made for current events. And as far as the updates went, they generally were in the same spirit as the original movie and the cat and mouse game between Le Chiffre and Bond is essentially that of the novel.

All this does NOT mean that the movie will only appeal to those who read the books. There are still many exciting chase scenes and stunts like you'd expect to see in a Bond film but fortunately Bond didn't seem so invincible. Daniel Craig's version of Bond could apparently do what the prior Bonds could do, but you'll notice throughout the film that he's cut and bruised--not exactly a man of steel. I loved this and it did tend to make the unrealness of the stunts seem a tad more believable. Plus, again, Fleming would be thrilled as several stories he wrote talked about the toll on Bond's body.

The film was well-constructed, stunt heavy but not enough to alienate purists like myself and intelligently written. About the only people who will strongly dislike this film are those who are looking for a reincarnation of Sean Connery or Roger Moore. Craig certainly doesn't look or act like either of these two guys. While I could easily imagine Connery's or Moore's characters sipping martinis while engaged in gay banter with their arch-enemies, Craig is more the type you'd expect to beat the enemies to death with his bare hands--like a REAL government assassin. Wow, do I like the change!

PS--The Aston Martin DBS V12 in this movie is a gorgeous car and it should be with a base price of $265,000. In the film, it is destroyed and I truly hope this was a model or something other than one of these great sports cars--it would be tragic if they really did in this car!

Casino Royale (2006) is without doubt one of the best Ian Fleming's James Bond. This is the real film, the real Bond film unlike lackluster sh**y Die Another Day stupid movie! I have enjoyed this film so damn much! I love this film to death, from action sequence to actors and the plot story I love it. The film is very realistic serious well portrayed it has no jokes. It is my favorite because it is action, action, action and even more action. Casino Royale (2006) is the twenty-first spy film in the Eon Productions James Bond film series, and is the third screen adaptation of Ian Fleming's 1953 novel of the same name.

I make no apologies for believing that Daniel Craig really did become the closest thing we've seen to IAN FLEMING's James Bond. I'm a hard-core James Bond fan I love a lot of the films that over 50 years were made. Casino Royale is simply my third favorite James Bond film it is in my top 10 favorite James Bond films. This movie is interesting totally mind-blowing. It is highly entertaining, espionage with a lot of action sequence. Not boring or lame but believable well acted.

After lackluster fiasco and disaster Die Another Day (2002) producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli fired actor Pierce Brosnan because he wanted too much money to shoot a fifth Bond movie, and producers had already decided to reboot the long-running spy saga with a grittier approach. Daniel Craig ultimately took over the role for 2006's Casino Royale and has gone on to achieve success as arguably the most popular 007 since the days of Sean Connery.

Daniel Craig is fantastic as new James Bond tough I love Pierce Brosnan this is the real deal. Actress Samantha Bond also left James Bond saga after 4 movies since Brosnan was fired and this movie did not used Miss Moneypenny.

Eva Green as the new Bond's girl Vesper Lynd did an excellent performance and a fine job playing James Bond's first true love. Green and Craig have electric chemistry on screen together. Vesper's character seems ambiguous, impudent and complicated. One night-slumped in the shower fully clothed, radiating inner beauty-her quiet look is capable to melt Bond's cold heart and free his doubtful mind. In another, she disconcerts him with her pretty 'Algerian love knot.

Judi Dench as M is always awesome and she did a fantastic well done job. In GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and this movie she did a well done excellent job. I love the actress and I had a blast watching her on screen.

Mads Mikkelsen is the villain banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who tries to get rich in supplying funds for terrorists. The actor did incredible job as the main villain and I really absolutely loved his performance.

Jeffrey Wright plays the new undercover CIA agent Felix Leiter 'bleeding chips at the poker tournament:' and Giancarlo Giannini plays the 'contact' Mathis.

The Italian actress Caterina Murino plays Solange who reveals her sexy side as the frustrated woman so upset in her marriage.

Armed with a license to kill, Secret Agent James Bond sets out on his first mission as 007, and must defeat a private banker to terrorists in a high stakes game of poker at Casino Royale, Montenegro, but things are not what they seem.

Bond (Daniel Craig) is chasing a terrorist bomber Mollaka (Sebastien Foucan) who was contracted by terrorist organization to make and sell a bomb. While Bond chases him he has to jump on a several sky cranes and on a building to continue the chase. Real stunt performance from stunt man and actor Daniel Craig. He chases Mollaka to embassy in Madagascar and shots him and shoots a nearby gas tank makes a huge explosion and flees with Mollaka's bag, he finds his cell phone with text message the word "ELLIPSIS."

A trail leads Bond to Nassau, Bahamas to Alex Dmitrios (Simon Abkarian) in which Bond seduces his wife Solange and find's out he goes to Miami USA. Bond pursues Dmitrios to Miami airport kills Dmitrios with a knife in self defense tracks down another bomber.

Bond stops the terrorist and takes the bomb away from the airplane. Saves all the passengers and the plane. Great tanker truck chase on the airport. Great action sequence Bond saves over 200 lives in this movie that is why I love it so much. Bond stops the tanker before hitting the plane with all the gas and the bomb attached to it and he attaches bomb on a terrorist. Excellent action sequence!

Bond has to fight Le Chiffre in high poker game with Felix Leiter. Bond kill's two black men in which Le Chiffre lost their money and single handle with fists kill's them. Bond is such a bad-ass in this movie. Le Chiffre and his blond girl Valenka (Ivana Milicevic) poison Bond's martini with digitalis, causing Bond to suffer severe tachycardia. Bond runs to his car for defibrillator but passes out. Vesper Lynd comes and save's his life. Bond comes back in to Casino finishes the game and beats Le Chiffre at the game. Bond drives Aston Martin DBS great action sequence.

10/10 This movie is directed by Martin Campbell who directed GoldenEye my all time favorite Pierce Brosnan 007 film. Casino Royale (2006) is my third favorite film in the Bond 007 saga and I love this movie to death! I love it so damn much!

First off, the negative. Casino Royale is both too long and too short. Like OHMSS, there are moments when the running time feels its length and others where you think something's missing because they suddenly tried to trim the running time by not shooting bits. At times you'd be grateful for a little bit of exposition BEFORE a couple of the big action scenes rather than after. And some of the script has some lines as subtle as a car crash that stink of Paul Haggis' brand of heavy handedness. The big finale is just a bit too much, as if they're afraid not to destroy some big building again because that's what they always do.

Having got that out of the way, none of that matters that much because this is the best Bond since George Lazenby thought he had all the time in the world. It's got a strong plot for once and makes it even stronger by showing us where Bond came from and how he smoothed away some of the rough edges. And the edges are brutally rough here. The killings are nasty and the aftermath has to be dealt with in a way Bonds have never done before.

The real ace in the hand is Craig. He doesn't have Connery's raw star quality, but he's easily the best actor to have played the part. I don't know if the film was shot in sequence but for the only time since OHMSS you get a sense of Bond changing throughout the film as his cockiness becomes confidence and his brutality becomes cold efficiency. He starts off unlikeable but human and gradually picks up the Bond traits we know until he becomes more likable but just a little less human. It's an interesting journey and Craig is up to it. It's not just his delivery, it's also his body language. Even his fighting style changes as he adapts.

Physically he's the most in your face Bond since Lazenby and the action scenes look brutal for once. Even the not very likely free running chase is spectacular but believable because you get the idea that this really is kill or be killed stuff. It's got a real feel of danger to it that hasn't been seen in the series in years. Only the torture scene feels like it's holding back (it's almost as tastefully done as the old TV version) but that's probably fear of the censors.

You'll come out of this one not just thinking that Daniel Craig IS James Bond, but that no-one has ever played him before. Let's all hope EON don't lose their nerve with Bond 22 and bring back the sci-fi stuff and gadgets, because this could be a real new beginning! See it and you'll believe it.

Now look, I'm a hard-core James Bond fan. Some might say a purist.I make no apologies for believing that Timothy Dalton is the closest thing we've seen to IAN FLEMING's James Bond.

Last night I saw Casino Royale.

This is, for the first time, the truest interpretation of the character we have ever seen.

This film is amazing. Totally mind-blowing. From the black and white pre-titles, to arguably the best titles sequence ever. From the African free-running chase to the beautiful interiors of London. From Judi Dench's harassed M, to the super cool Le Chiffre. From the stone-cold government killer, to the heart broken lover.

Style and sophistication are in abundance.

And I love it.

Lancelot Narayan DVD Producer The Lip Sync Group

Casino Royale is based on, by far, the most boring of Fleming's novels; though it serves as the introduction to Bond the character, in effect our hero does little but sit around smoking and playing cards. This movie remains painstakingly true to the book, for the most part, which is both a good and a bad thing in the long run. But Royale isn't trying to be a Bond film; in fact, it tries so hard to be an anti-Bond film that it hurts. The object behind this film, much like with Batman Begins, is to show you where the hero came from and who he was before he became so mythic.

At least in BB, Bruce Wayne gets to be Batman. Here, such is not the case. Daniel Craig plays a real hard-ass killer, one who drinks, plays cards, and is both quick-witted and fast on his feet. He's a pretty cool guy – but make no mistake, he is not James Bond. Bond, even going back to Connery, is supposed to have a touch of the larger than life about him (though maybe not so much as Roger Moore gave him), and here, the filmmakers are strenuously determined that, outside of the action sequences, that not be so. Bond, as well as being a ruthless agent, is supposed to be a little suave, a little dashing (again, even going back to Connery); but Craig has (or was directed to have) none of that charm. He comes off as an intelligent, intuitive assassin, but not the super-spy that, frankly, most fans of the Bond series want to see.

It doesn't help that he has no real villains to fight against. Le Chiffre (Mad Mikkelsen) is an international banker who launders black market funds, which isn't the same as a Chinese mastermind taking over an island in the Bahamas or a former Russian general stealing a laser satellite. Some people complained that these elaborate villains and schemes were what weakened the franchise, but look at an excellent barometer of what it is to be Bond, the Austin Powers movies. Mike Myers understands better than the Broccoli estate that what helps to make Bond Bond is pitting him against a worthy adversary. Granted, Le Chiffre is the villain in the novel as well, and in staying faithful to the book, they didn't have much choice but to use him. But even in the novel, when Bond beats Le Chiffre at baccarat (here dumbed down to poker), there is a sharp sense of relief and triumph. Here, when Bond wins, it's like a foregone conclusion, and the moment carries no impact at all.

When Bond is running around trying to catch or kill someone, Royale is great. The extended pre-credits action sequence is really well done, but the problem is, it's pretty much the entire action for the whole movie. Again, this is merely following the book, but the filmmakers failed to realize that what passed for exotic in 1954 doesn't any more. Just having a sequence set in the Bahamas in the 1950s was exciting (still true of Dr. No in the early 60s). But with the shrunken world of the 21st century, we're not impressed with Carribbean locations or Montenegro's casinos. We've seen this all before.

Royale is in and of itself an okay film. It's too long, and the twists and turns at the end are rather obvious (and they take waaaaaay too long to get to). The first hour and a half move along reasonably well, but the last 45 minutes drag. Craig is engaging enough as the lead, gruffer than Bond should be but ultimately he's an acceptable spy. The real problem with the film (aside from length) is the intent; the filmmakers try far too hard to remake Bond for a new century, when really, there was nothing wrong with the old Bond. By going back to the beginning of the saga, they were consciously trying to erase 40 years of cinematic history; a tall (and unwanted) order, and frankly, one that this movie is not up to. It's a little like the recent King Arthur movie with Clive Owen – not a bad movie at all, but not a particularly good representation of that iconic character. Sadly, since this film is doing well (the theater was the most crowded I have seen since Star Wars last summer), we'll be stuck not only with this actor but this version of Bond for the next few years. Here's hoping the next fella gets it right.

I was going to wait until a second viewing of CASINO ROYALE before writing a comment for it since my opinion on a film occasionally does change the second time around, but I am absolutely stunned at the positive rating of the picture so I feel I must get my two cents out while my grips are fresh in my mind. Since there are so many of them, the following will read more as a complaint this than a coherent review, which is appropriate since coherency is definitely not something that CASINO ROYAL has, surprising given the ridiculous two and a half hour running time. Poorly adapted by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and (groan) Paul Haggis, is the perfect example of one too many cooks in the kitchen. There are two screenplays fighting for screen time here, and the two mesh horribly. The action aspect, which I am guessing is Purvis and Wade's screenplay, is fine. The ideas behind the action scenes are incredible. The execution-not so much. Then there's the so-called character development and horrid romantic sub-plot that feel like they were tacked right after shooting began. No doubt that was the work of Haggis' trite, pain-inducing screenplay, overwrought with some of the corniest dialogue of all time delivered by the seemingly medicated Daniel Craig as James Bond. Neither charming nor slick, Craig plays Bond as if he doesn't care. There is no coolness factor to Bond here, especially when the film turns into THE NOTEBOOK in the last act. Yes, this is not the Bond we all know and love. This is a sensitive, weak, and all around boring Bond. The exact type that should not be in an action movie. To make matters worse, there is no chemistry between Craig and leading lady Eva Green. In fact, their romance seems downright creepy. Green was 25-years-old when 'ROYALE' was shot, Craig was 38 and looking over 40. I could buy them as father and daughter, but as a supposed couple, it was just a major turn off.

Perhaps the biggest cinematic crime CASINO ROYALE makes is throwing the continuity of the series out the window. Granted the Bond series has never been about continuity, but what's done in 'ROYALE' is a giant slap in the face to anyone who has been following the franchise for even the past few installments. A supposed prequel to the series, the story takes place in 2006. With a budget of over $150 million, the filmmakers couldn't have set in another decade? It's just one of the many examples in CASINO ROYALE that shows film-making at its laziest. Don't believe the hype. This is the worst Bond picture of all time. I never thought I would say this, but Bond is dead. Worst of the year. 0/10

The problem with writing from the future (9 years after this film was released) is that the reviewer knows more than he should. For that I apologize.

Apologies aside, I am giving this film a "10" (CITIZEN KANE CLASS) because:

* it is the best and most artfully crafted reboot in modern film history. It took all expectations and blew them away. (Unlike for example the wretched Spiderman reboot which, we found out, was done for financial reasons to keep an option clause alive.)

* the first 50 minutes is perhaps one of the most action-packed segments in film history as well. The intent was to position Craig's re-imagining of Bond as similar to a bloodhound -- once on the scent, he never lets up. From the opening scene with Free-jumping (of the millions who saw this, most did not realize what they were seeing) to the airport explosion, it is gripping and brilliant. It also sets up the relationship for the later film themed around Judi Dench, essentially killing two birds with one stone. Brilliant.

* the second part of the film involves a transition which succeeds but only by the skin of its celluloid teeth. The idea from the script meetings was, having established JB as a cold-hearted bastard, give him a "loss" to set up the next film that makes it "personal". Was this too much too soon? Critics felt the reboot too ambitious, but it was entertaining throughout.

* Eva Green's looks have never been used to better advantage, nor is it likely they ever will again. Sin City 2 notwithstanding.

* the trope with the cardiac paddles is one of the most memorable in film history and verily defines the phrase "man enough to jog home from his own vasectomy." Many young men who saw this in a theatre with dates felt very inadequate that night.

Bottom line, a "10" score is usually reserved for a film which is perfect, memorable, and historical. This qualifies. Whatever flaws exist in this reboot (and there are several) are found entirely in the sequels. This first entry set the bar.

"The film returns to "realism" and a more credible plot, with less fantasy and gratuitous humour." – The Guardian (on "The Living Daylights" – the first Bond movie to star Timothy Dalton)

Whenever the Bond franchise is reset and a new actor is brought in, the Bond publicity machine claims that this new entry will "go in new directions", "be different", "edgier", "more violent", "more realistic" etc. And every time audiences are conned, if only for a couple "new" installments, until they realise that these films don't actually change, they just absorb whatever film-making trends are currently in vogue.

Bond was always a disposable product. With no character history and a personality distilled to a series of tics, he epitomises cinema as throwaway commodity. The most commercially successful movie hero and franchise in history, the Bond films are not only rife with "product placements", but they themselves function as a kind of highly sophisticated advertisement for the James Bond brand. They must simultaneously invoke tradition and the promise of something new, yet as that newness is always bound to tradition, you never actually get anything new, just variations of the same old thing, the franchise continually destroying its past even as it persistently resurrects it. Bond is about bondage in more ways than one.

Bond was always about unrealistic fantasies of Western power, the films (including "Casino Royale") all depicting beautiful people behaving violently in a cold and "rational" fashion whilst extravagantly consuming the best materials society can provide in the form of expensive yachts, cars, food and hotels. Little thought is ever given to emotional connection, spirituality or non-dominating forms of conflict resolution, the dominant social paradigm is always vindicated and reasserted, Bond always wins (often through highly unethical means), all the women he seeks are conquered, the "traitorous woman" is always killed and a Victorian mentality of society being strictly hierarchical, mechanistic and controlled from the top by an inherited nobility, is always served up.

And of course the narrative structures of all the Bond movies are the same: we have the titillative pre-story action sequence, the revelation of the mission, the journey to the exotic location, the meeting with the first woman, the introduction of the sub villain, the mid point action sequences, the introduction of the second woman, the capture of Bond by the central villain, the escape of Bond and the climactic action sequence, often in which the bad guy is killed. Added to this mix is the usual sprinkling of black tie functions, high stakes gambles, card games, exotic locations, gun-play, dangerous car chases etc.

And as most "action movies" are reliant on the technology and conventions of the time in which they were made, and as the "pace" of these films is constantly increasing, most Bond films have a shelf life of about 3 years, each film looking dated by the time the other arrives.

Of course most action movies adhere to this formula (the Indiana Jones flicks follow it to a tee) - this is because our cultural narrative structure is shaped strongly around the pattern of the male sexual experience (setup, building tension, climax, then resolution) - but the Bond movies have been religiously following their own template and replicating whole sequences for almost six decades. This is why EON Productions, the company which produces the Bond movies, typically hires hack directors and doesn't let auteurs go near the series: no one is allowed to fiddle with the Bond ingredients. No one. ("Quantum of Solace" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" are, thus far, the closest the series has come to an auteur; unsurprisingly, the masses hated both)

Midway in this film a character asks Bond if he'd like his drink "Shaken or stirred?" Bond replies "Do I look like I give a damn?" as though he's suddenly treading brave new narrative terrain. In reality, such little "self-aware gimmicks" (which are scattered throughout "Casino Royale") are no more "edgy" than George Lazenby breaking the third wall and saying "this never happened to the other fellow". Once you realise these movies have never been shaken, there becomes nothing in them to really cause a stir.

6/10 – A clichéd film with an overlong final act and an underused Eva Green. The film has several action sequences, all derivative. The "free running" sequences are low rent versions of "Ong Bak" and "District 13", Bond's bathroom brawl recalls "True Lies", the airport chase seems like a deleted scene from the original "Die Hard" trilogy, whilst the "African Base standoff" at the start of the film is identical to the "Russian Base standoff" at the start of "Goldeneye" (same director, too). Incidentally, the director of this film, Martin Campbell, "rebooted" Bond in the early 90s with "Goldeneye", just as director Guy Hamilton twice "rebooted" Bond in the 60s and 70s.

Worth one viewing.

OK, this is the 21st century. So, maybe it's time for even the Bond genre to get a tune-up for new generation audiences. At least that's what the producers thought.

But the New Bond is as disappointing as New Coke. Nothing beats the original.

For starters, the producers seemed to make sure to keep everything out of the screenplay for "Casino Royale" that made the Bond series unique, exciting, engaging and fun.

The so-called "Bond formula" balanced sadism with sensuality, and ironic humor. Sadly missing from this film too are the other Bond staples: gadgets, buxom blonds, and wonderful little quips and double entendres. This all gave the Bond series a comic book adventure cadence and buoyancy. It didn't take itself too seriously.

But "Casino Royale" jettisons all this and just keeps slogging along with relentless action scenes, brutality, banality and not much else. Yes, the action scenes are astutely choreographed, filmed and edited. But they are needed to shore up a saggy, dragged-out and somewhat convoluted plot.

The opening immediately warns you that this is not "classic" Bond. It sets the film's heavy tone. Bond brutally assassinates two criminals, one by drowning in a lavatory sink, in black-and-white film noir, no less. By contrast in the "Goldfinger" (1964) prequel, Bond blows up a narcotics operation, changes into a tux, romances a cabaret dancer, and easily dispenses with an assassin, all the before the opening credits.

The opening credits of "Casino Royale" alone are another warning. There is not one stylized silhouette of a female model, which was the glamour signature in almost all Bond films. Instead, we just have silhouettes of guy shooting each other and bleeding in Technicolor across the screen. Yuck!

What's horribly pretentious is that the whole film tries to chronicle the apprentice Bond's transition into a 007 assassin. But it's as contrived and unconvincing as Anakin Skywalker's metamorphosis into Darth Vader. And, in the end it's even sappier than the brief marriage of George Lanzenby's Bond to Dianna Rigg in the 1969 "on Her Majesty's Secret Service."

Frankly, I'm not Bond's psychologist and so I really don't care to delve into life's little traumas that shaped 007. I'm content with accepting that he just grew up that way.

Daniel Craig is terribly miscast as Bond. He's a blue collar Bond. He looks self-conscious in a tuxedo. He's too hard chiseled in appearance for the debonair Bond as invented by Ian Flemming.

Craig could have just as easily been cast as one of the villains in the film. His strident, driven demeanor reminds me a little bit of Donovan Grant, the SPECTRE assassin played by Robert Shaw in the 1963 "From Russia with Love." Craig is humorless, and too much on the edge for my tastes. Actually, his squinty eyes, big upper torso, and gait reminds me a little of Popeye the Sailor.

Like the Timothy Dalton Bond, he has no sense of playfulness either. His romantic side seems forced in the film's few dull and gratuitous lovemaking scenes. And, the women cast to play opposite him in this film can barely gain admission into the sorority of Bond babes.

Equally lackluster is Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of high-roller Le Chiffre. He doesn't fit into the shoes of previous legendary bond villains such as Goldfinger, Largo, and Blofeld. Frankly, Mikkelsen is just plain creepy, but not scary. As the top bad guy he seems to be on Valium most of the time.

The silly torture scene at the end is also out of character for him. Mikkelsen doesn't have any of the bully, bluster and swagger of the classic Bond villains. Please give me just one script line like Goldfinger's: "I expect you to die Mr. Bond!" Ho hum.

All of this makes for just another forgetful spy movie with lots of fists and blood and guts, nothing more. It's wrapped itself in the James Bond mystique – which will guarantee a good box office – but pays no homage to the genre.

It's too bad the creators felt they hand to change such a celebrated formula that has sustained the popularity of Bond series for nearly four decades.

After the lamentable Die Another Day, a rethink for the Bond franchise was definitely in order. The new approach: a tougher, more brutal 007 with the plot emphasis on realism rather than far-fetched tales of world-domination, super villains, and silly gadgets. The last time the production team behind the world's favourite spy tried this, they gave us License to Kill—a film I personally loved, but critics seemed to hate. However, this time around, I seem to be the odd one out: critics raved about Daniel Craig's debut outing as James, whereas I struggled with the film, finding it poorly scripted and directed, and way too long.

Set at the beginning of Bond's career, Casino Royale sees the top spy first earning his 007 status (by killing two people) and then, after chasing down a bomb-maker, taking on bad guy Le Chiffre, banker to international terrorists. When Le Chiffre loses his investors' cash after a failed attack on an airliner, he attempts to win it back in a poker game at the titular Casino Royale. Bond, no slouch at the game himself, tries to make sure that this doesn't happen.

So why don't I like this film as much as previous outings for Bond, and who do I hold responsible? Well, I don't blame Daniel Craig: he looks the part and plays the charismatic spy very well, bringing a tough edge to the role which was sorely lacking with Pierce Brosnan.

I guess that the blame must be apportioned to scriptwriters Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis, and director Martin Campbell. The convoluted plot has loads of moments which stretch plausibility beyond breaking point, and Campbell's muddled handling of the movie makes following proceedings very difficult.

The first surefire indicator that something was up were the opening credits, which were devoid of the usual magnificent hypnotic blend of girls and guns; instead we get some crap CGI graphics.

The next iffy moment sees Bond pursuing a foe through a building site, with both men navigating the terrain with superhuman agility. As if they're playing some crazy full-sized platform game, they jump up and down and across all manner of obstacles with complete disregard for their own safety. Whilst this all looks very impressive, it is very hard to swallow. That's the sense of realism blown right there!

And the film's tense non-action 'highlight', Bond's card game with his arch enemy, is plain boring. Will Bond win or will he lose his £15million? Will I stay awake to find out? After much tedious card-play, Le Chiffre outwits Bond at poker in a move I saw coming a mile away, but, when Bond's luck changes, poisons our hero in a fit of bad sportsmanship (it's a good job Bond's new car is fitted with a selection of antidotes and a defibrillator!!).

Then, after an admittedly nasty torture scene in which James gets his knackers bashed, the film completely stalls with some lovey-dovey tripe which nearly sees our agent hang up his Walther PPK forever. A last ditch attempt to revive the audience sees James in one final gunfight in a sinking building in Venice—a case of too little, too late.

As an action film, I guess Casino Royale is OK; as a Bond film, it's mediocre at best.

Things weren't looking too promising when new Bond Daniel Craig was unveiled to the general public . Due to health and safety regulations Craig was required by law to wear a life jacket as the speedboat he was in shot along the Thames and stopped in front of a crowd of not very enthusiastic paparazzi . Craig didn't do his cause much good by his awkward mannerisms that seemed to shout " I'm actually a serious thespian and all this publicity is slightly annoying to a self respecting luvvie like myself " On top of that the press were very vocal in stating that this Bond had blonde hair and would never be taken seriously as Ian Fleming's superhero . It's impossible to believe this now but very few people thought Daniel Craig would be any type of success in the role

To their credit the producers have gone back and rewritten history . CASINO ROYALE was the first Bond novel and so this cinematic version of CASINO ROYALE is effectively the first Bond movie with previous entries DR NO to DIE ANOTHER DAY being conveniently forgotten about . It was a massive gamble to take but the producers just about manage to pull it off . What it does is make Bond a far more rounded character rather than the cartoonish parody he was in the lesser Moore films or DIE ANOTHER DAY . It also leaves more scope for future films in the franchise since we an introductory scene for CIA agent Felix Leiter who " disagreed with something that ate him " in LICENCE TO KILL . Unfortunately he's not given much to do here or in the later QUANTUM OF SOLACE . It seems strange with hindsight that Leiter was brought back in this case

Despite the hype surrounding CR which many people claim is the greatest Bond movie ever there are a few flaws to it . One is that it follows the novel a bit too closely in the second half . In the novel Le Chiffre doesn't really do anything evil except play cards and wallop Bond in the genitals and this is recreated on screen . However this is rather small fry for a movie bad guy and you do find yourself wishing his cruelty could have fleshed out more . There's also an obligatory daft sequence where a defibrillator comes in to play which leads you to ask if Bond's a clairvoyant . CR also feels overlong by about half an hour

That said the first half is superb and the African scenes where Bond pursues his quarry back to the embassy are amongst the most exciting action sequences you will see in any movie . Likewise the attempted bombing at Miami airport that shows Bond can be a callous assassin when he has to be . Craig is wonderful in the role and he's helped in no small part by a lack of comedy situations and characters as seen in previous entries . Some people might miss Q and his gadgets but I didn't . I much preferred this serious character driven Bond

CASINO ROYALE breathes new life in to a cinema franchise that is over 40 years old . Many critics describe it as the best Bond ever but I have to disagree because what stops it being so is that suffers from a rather weak second half where it sticks too rigedly to the book but for the first hour and twenty minutes I was compelled by this reinvention of James Bond 007

When Sean Connery appeared in the third 007 thriller "Goldfinger" in 1964, the James Bond film franchise had won audiences over with its surefire formula of combining girls and gadgets with epic international criminal intrigue. James Bond always tangled with megalomaniacal villains whose larger-than-life ambitions dwarfed the skulduggery of commonplace lawbreakers. Each Bond adventure emerged as an event decked out with stunts galore and often a chart-topping title tune. The "Casino Royale" title tune is instantly forgettable. The formula served the series well as the last Pierce Brosnan 007 thriller "Die Another Day" amassed more than $400-million-plus at the box office in 2002.

Fearful that they couldn't top themselves again and fresh out of imaginative ideas, the Bond producers decided to start from scratch, like George Lucas did—with far greater credibility than he is given—with "Star Wars: Episode 1: The Phantom Menace." Not only did the 007 producers send Pierce Brosnan packing, but they also trashed their tried-and-true formula. Anybody remember the new Coke? Well, Sony and Columbia Pictures, which bought out United Artists—the distributor of the previous 20 Bond pictures—have unveiled the new Bond. If you look at the money that "Casino Royale" has generated and you read the critics, the new Bond and the actor impersonating him—Daniel Craig of the first "Tomb Raider" movie—are performing better than anybody could have surmised.

Most new Bonds amount to underachievers, such as "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1969) and "Live and Lie Die" (1973), and Bonds that forsake the formula usually crash and burn. Aside from its earnings and its widespread critical support, "Casino Royale" is barely a Bond opus. Neither M's secretary—Miss Moneypenny—nor Bond's gadget supplying guy—Q, show up in the 21st 007 thriller. The producers have dispensed with risqué names for the heroines and the villainesses, and the stunts are largely low-tech. The clever one-liners that our globe-trotting hero spouts and the larger-than-life villains are both conspicuously absent.

Instead, "Casino Royale" qualifies as a prequel, showing how James Bond acquired his license to kill before he became the polished practitioner of seduction and sadism in the earlier 007 outings. No, the new Bond is set in the here and now rather than the yonder of yesteryear. Actually, the black & white opening sequence is supposed to take place before the first Bond movie "Dr. No" and then the remainder of the movie—in color—occurs after "Die Another Day." Along the way, the filmmakers have cherry picked only bits and pieces from the 1953 Ian Fleming original novel where the redoubtable, double-0 agent made his debut.

Suffice it to say that "Casino Royale" establishes James Bond's lethal credentials and shows him gambling with a crafty criminal genius in a high-stakes poker game. Compared with previous Bonds, "Casino Royale" is about neither the next plot to take over the world nor a devious scheme to mastermind the perfect crime. James Bond earns his license to kill status in the opening black & white sequences that lack any kind of excitement and seem rather like a picnic for him. He beats a guy up in a public restroom and outsmarts an opponent who holds him at gunpoint with an empty weapon. Afterward, Bond makes a buffoon of himself by shooting dead a couple of people at a foreign embassy and getting caught on a surveillance camera in the act of killing! Of course, M (Judi Dench of the Brosnan Bonds) is predictably furious. "In the old days, if an agent did something that embarrassing, he'd at least have the good sense to defect." Later, British Intelligence learns that Le Chiffre (Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen of "King Arthur"), who bankrolls terrorists, has got to win big at the gambling tables at Casino Royale or face death from one of his savage, machete-wielding African clients. M sends Bond to beat Le Chiffre at cards, and the British Treasury assigns Vesper Lynd (Parisian actress Eva Green of "Kingdom of Heaven") to see that 007 doesn't blow the big bucks.

"GoldenEye" director Martin Campbell is back calling the shots on Bond 21. He must have forgotten, however, what makes a good Bond. First, "Casino Royale" clocks in at 144 tedious minutes, the longest Bond on record—longer than Peter Hunt's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Second, there are lengthy stretches where nothing extraordinary happens. The color opening set piece where Bond and a black villain cavort around a construction site as if they had wings on their ankles grows tiresome but looks spectacular. Later, a white-knuckled fight in a motel stairwell goes on ad-nauseam. The chief villain is appropriately ruthless, but he doesn't do anything to make you genuinely hate him. He does whip Bond into a frenzy in one scene, but that's small potatoes compared with other Bond bad guys. Actually, the secondary villains pose more of a threat than Le Chiffre and his clowns. Most, "Casino Royale" is humdrum and humorless in its efforts to be realistic.

The Robert Wade and Neal Purvis screenplay offers few surprises (especially if you've perused the Ian Fleming novel) and the movie serves up two false endings before an explosive but hardly exciting finale in urban renewal in the exotic city of Venice. The only thing that differentiates Le Chiffre is his ability to shed a bloody tear or two. Daniel Craig plays James Bond as a hopelessly straightforward and tight-lipped, blue-collar thug with muscles. He resembles a cross-between of Steve McQueen of "Bullitt" and Yoda from "Star Wars." He is tough and rugged but lacks charisma. Furthermore, he has to rely on others to get him out of tight spots. Indeed, if it weren't for Vesper Lynd, Bond would never have accomplished his mission—bittersweet as it turns out.

"Casino Royale" ranks as an uninspired but ambitious stab to make over one of the most successful franchises in film history. As a traditional, old-school Bond fan, "Casino Royale" left me neither shaken nor stirred.

That's what it says in Chris Cornell's excellent Bond song to Casino Royale. And it's not only a fitting reference to Vesper's struggles in the shower, but also an accurate line to describe Daniel Craig's approach to the role as he takes over one of the most famous characters from literature and cinema. Let's stay with Cornell though: His music here is the epitome of energetic and I wish it could have been included on more occasions during the movie the way it was handled in older films, even if the old traditional tune is also always nice to listen to. But it's on a level of true greatness. Some Bond songs, even if I don't find them bad by any means, I grow a bit tired of after listening to them many times, but this one here I still can't get enough of after all these years. Now, as for the movie, I'm always a bit skeptical when people say "It's a good film, but it is not really Bond anymore". Moore gave it a lighter approach, Dalton played the character in a way that is considered the closest to the one in the books. And Daniel Craig surely showed in his first film that he can carry the franchise as well. His approach is the taciturn one, the one that makes up for his sparing of words through his actions. And he really is a loose cannon, so much fun to watch. The prologue summarizes his anticipatory, yet very physical, performance impressively when he hunts down a disloyal MI6 member. But let's also take a look at the basics: The director is Martin Campbell, definitely not a household name despite how prolific he has been, also long before this film. He directed Pierce Brosnan in that one's first film over a decade earlier and that was quite a success I think. This was maybe the reason why he got chosen again and this BAFTA-winning film here is also probably by far his most known career work. And who knows, maybe Campbell does it once more with whoever follows Craig. So far, he is two from two. Writers Purvis and Wade are also no rookies at all to the Bond franchise and have collaborated on other occasions. Add to that Paul Haggis for whom 2006 was not exactly a weak year either if you take a look at the Oscars, even if he is still getting a lot of hate for that nowadays.

After the good-as-always intro with the aforementioned song (which is symbolic for the masculinity Craig brings as there had been exclusively female performers since Dalton's first film almost 20 years earlier), we see a solid chase scene with Bond chasing and killing a bomb maker in Madagascar. After the usual scolding from M (the incomparable Judi Dench, who was also in the Brosnan films already), he goes to the Bahamas and goes after a man named Dimitrios (while seducing his wife). At this point, I was slightly disappointed. This was perhaps the weakest part of the film. But it's all way up from there. The terrorist attack about to happen at the airport is already pretty good, especially with Bond's smile (you don't see that too often with Craig) the moment the bomb detonates and when Eva Green's Vesper Lynd enters the picture, the film gets pretty great and won't leave that territory anymore until the end. Already their first scene in the airplane showed how great their chemistry was when they are analyzing each other psychologically in the most entertaining manner. Lots of banter there already, even with serious topics like being orphaned. It's always nice to have a Bond girl with more substance than usual and that surely applies to Miss Lynd. The scene in the shower, her reaction when Bond fights the two African henchmen and of course the final scenes in Italy make her one of my favorite female performances in Bond movies. And just like Diana Rigg in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", she manages to melt Bond's heart as well more than Bond girls usually do. The scenes when he hears her being tortured in the room next to him are pretty sad and it's the only moment he is at least remotely in danger of telling the password. The ending was truly sad as well and the moment we see her lose consciousness in the water is heartbreaking. Eva Green isn't really a traditional beauty as many others before her were, but that's exactly what helps her here and, of course, visually she's still totally breathtaking, in the casino and pretty much every time she's on the screen. Anyway, everything from her introduction onwards is just a huge blast, which means the film already delivered in one of the key categories of what makes a good Bond movie.

Another criterion would be the main villain. Of course, we don't need to talk about Mads Mikkelsen's great range and here he brings it all to the character as well. Le Chiffre is as scary as he's mysterious and it helps that he's not some kind of super-villain, but also has his demons as he's in desperate need to get back the money he owes his investors. His struggles are always worth a watch, like when everybody at the table orders the same drink like Bond (nice reference to shaken/stirred from the older Bond movies by the way, just like the more obvious later on), and Bond is still the center of the room, even if he just lost very many chips to Le Chiffre. Maybe the latter's comment on how he wants the same, but without the vegetables was supposed to show us how he competes with Bond in terms of masculinity. Or tries to at least. Or of course his tears of blood, which were a very smart inclusion, even if I kinda feel they could have done more with those story-wise. Or his look at Bond right after he drank the poisoned glass. So much focus to detail, in terms of how he was written and portrayed, makes him a great character.

Then there were all the supporting characters: M, Leiter, the other poker players, Mathis (played by the Oscar-nominated Giannini)... who were all portrayed accurately, even if they didn't really have that much to work with. And Leiter was still a new guy here, not a close friend to Bond as in the Dalton film(s) for example. I already mentioned many actors and characters here, but as a German, I shall also not forget about two that I like quite a bit. Clemens Schick plays a henchman here who is even more silent than his boss. Unusual to see him with a bald head. And, even more importantly, we have Ludger Pistor, who is always a delight and he even has some comedic material, like how in his last scene (of admittedly not too many) he even manages to put a smile on Craig's character's locked lips. Great actor! Besides, in this scene we also find out about the password (if your eyes weren't fast enough earlier) and go pay attention to how Vesper reacts the moment she realizes what she means to him, especially in comparison to what she's doing to him. Where she is sending the money.

This is definitely a pretty long movie at almost 2.5 hours, especially if you compare it to the one that followed right afterwards. So, just like with Craig's Bond approach, you can never be sure about anything. Still, it obviously flew by and it's almost impossible not to like it, even if many people found criticisms here. For me not a decisive factor. Also those who complain about the film lacking the charm from the old Connery and Moore films should see that there are many references to the classics. I already mentioned the drink for example. Or take how the boss kills some of his own as they are not competent enough. Or how beautiful women die, but not before they ended up between the sheets with 007. This was actually very cleanly structured. Mikkelsen's and Green's characters did not really enter the picture before Dimitrios (Abkarian) and his woman were out. In the truest sense of the word. And even if scenes like the one in which Bond almost dies from the poison do not feel particularly retro, they still add some high-quality modern grit.

The film is packed with great scenes: all the poker action (you don't need to be an expert to understand what's going on as Mathis keeps explaining to Lynd and the audience throughout), said defibrillator scene in the car, the torture scene (a nightmare for every male really), Mathis' arrest, but also how he got rid of the corpse (talk about killing two birds with one stone) or his final scene with the drink, retirement in Italy and many more. Daniel Craig, Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen make this film a mesmerizing watch. It's also the small moments that count, once again how Bond manages to charm each and every girl in this film (probably even M, although she won't admit it). Take the one at the reception early on that tells him where to find a certain character or also the woman running the early round of roulette that was a bit of a preparation for the big game between Bond and Le Chiffre. Casino games were nothing new at all to Bond movies. They have used them so many times, even if the impact at the center of the story was rarely (maybe never) as massive as it was in here. Also interesting reference about basically funding a terrorist organization with millions and millions of money. And also how we are led to believe Bond might have a bit of a gambling problem when he asks for additional millions. Luckily, Leiter is there to help him. Maybe that's how their friendship started. The one we see so often in the movies, movies much older than this one here. And the very last shot and line were very smart too, a nice reference to the older movies, not only in terms of coolness, but also in making audiences curious about Craig's second 007 outing that features another actor with Scandinavian roots as the main antagonist. In general, this one here is a film that includes a really colorful array of performers from all over the place. Brits, Germans, Italians, Danes, Americans, French, Africans, Bosnians... And of course, it also takes us all across the globe once again. With a better first half hour, this would probably have gotten a perfect score from me and be my favorite film of 2006. But this way, it still sits comfortably in my top5 of the year. Very much recommended.

Yes: Daniel Craig combines the ruthless efficiency of Sean Connery with some of the (under-rated) pathos exhibited by Timothy Dalton. And, yes: for only the third time in the series, the high-tech genius called Q is absent. But, a credit to the Bond flicks that have gone before it? With regard to continuity, I'd have to say: undeniably no!

First of all; this is supposed to be a prequel, explaining how Bond became a double-oh agent, in the first place. So, why wasn't this set at the tail end of the Cold War, instead of the present day?

Secondly; Bond, himself, admits (in "Dr. No"), that he had never met Felix Leiter, up to that point. He had only heard of him. So, why throw all that out the window? Why couldn't the writers have made Jeffrey Wright's character a CIA operative _working_ for Felix?

Last, but not least? Judi Dench's character is only supposed to have been promoted to M, just a short time BEFORE the theft of that high-tech chopper in "Goldeneye." So, if ret-conning now places that in the near-future, shouldn't Dench have been nothing more than a female Chief of Staff, filling in for an absent male M? After all; that's how they did it in "For Your Eyes Only," following the real-world death of Bernard Lee (Connery's M)!

So, I'm sorry, folks. But, there's only so much revisionism my suspension-of-disbelief can stand. The same kind of revisionism killed the film-series based on Tom Clancy's "Jack Ryan" novels. And, may yet do the same to even 007.

British secret-agent James Bond is investigating a corrupt banker called Le Chiffre, who specialises in investing funds from dictators and terrorists. After Bond foils a bomb attack on an aircraft, Le Chiffre fronts a high-stakes poker game in an attempt to win back his losses. Bond joins the game and locks wits with his foe.

This is the twenty-first official James Bond flick, featuring a new actor in the part and filming the only one of Ian Fleming's novels which hadn't been done (if you don't count a stupid but fun spoof version made in 1967). It looks sensationally glamorous, it's very well made, and it courageously dumps all the Roger Moore comedy and tries to present Bond in the more hard-edged Timothy Dalton mold, but it makes a terrible gaffe - it doesn't have any action. It starts off with an outstanding eight-minute sequence featuring Foucan, with delirious jumping stuntwork through a construction site and then a firefight in an embassy, but nothing afterwards comes even close to being as exciting. The airport rescue scene is okay but anticlimactic, but is followed by an interminable hour of mostly poker scenes (five minutes would have done) and soppy luvvy-duvvy stuff. At one point Bond jumps in his natty new Aston Martin DBR9 and you think, here we go - car chase - but it lasts exactly one corner ! There's a better car chase in Terms Of Endearment ! I guess the writers were trying to be faithful to the book, but a James Bond flick with no action is like an adult movie with no sex. Worse still, the plot is confusing and cheap; Green's dramatic death by drowning is bizarre - she locks herself in the lift, effectively committing suicide, and Le Chiffre's masterplan - get rich by investing blood money - is pretty dull. I also hate the way Le Chiffre's faked death is handled. This common plot twist can be done well (for example, in A Return To Salem's Lot) but here we see the character with a bullet-hole in his head, only to have him turn up later wearing a hat and shades so we're not even sure if it's him. Jeez, that sucks. Poor Craig is left to struggle with the script and the tone of the character, but actually manages to come off quite well, at least when he's allowed to make Bond a hard-hearted narcissist. But Danish actor Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre (the French word for number) is given very little to do - how scary can you be playing cards ? The decision to drop the iconography of the series - Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, secret lairs - maybe creates some credibility, but takes away half the fun, and a James Bond film should always be fun. This only just makes the grade as good entertainment and without the Foucan sequence it wouldn't; the producers should check out the current movies of Zhang Yimou - now that's action film-making. Shot in the Czech Republic, Nassau, Venice and Pinewood.

What in the name of God was this drivel all about? Let's face it Bond was pretty daft in the 60s but nowadays he's as relevant as Rickets. Where do they get the idiots from who wrote the script for this nonsense..............the book was lousy and the film laughable.......I could not make head nor tale of it and still don't know who the baddie was and am even less interested. So my government thinks the best way to defeat terrorism is to play cards with it....can't wait to see Blair and Bush make up a 3 card brag school with Bin Laden and the Taleban............ having worked on building sites for over 30 years I laughed my arce off at the opening sequence as Bond and Spiderman fought it out on off tower cranes and bouncing around on the neatest building site on the planet without snagging themselves on some junk left lying around by a careless navvy........who on Earth writes this garbage. The plot...and I use the word very very loosely...... was too stupid to even care about and the acting worse.......I like daniel craig but he's a bit silly as Bond....nobody can emulate ole Sean here and at least he got a couple of decent story lines in the 60s........what next I wonder a remake where Bond has to play Bowls with Bloefeld or maybe Snakes & Ladders with Largo......Bond has been pretty boring since the 70s but this cobblers was so pitifully dull that I would rather watch Spielbergs abysmal remake of War of the Worlds again.....worst movie of 2006 and lets hope that 'Bond Is Back' becomes a term we never hear again in the 21st century........Yeah I know ......as long as Hollywood is devoid of ideas and people are dumb enough to heap praise on such utter crap as this Dan will be lining up in 2008 with another pointless 2 hours of banal mayhem and martinis....shaken of course not stirred.....

One word... AMAZING. It is the type of Bond film all Bond fans have been waiting for. No more cute, wink wink, laugh out loud unbelievable moments we've all grown tired of. What Casino Royale did was make a very real film, with real life consequences and added a crap load of action. Awesome!!! Daniel Craig has taken the Bond character and ran away with it. I never saw a more believable Bond character since the early films of Sean Connery. Ian Flemming's intentions and spirit for the story and character was taken into major consideration and the results were nothing but positive.

Daniel Craig takes the Bond character to his early days before he is granted the infamous double O status. Casino Royale's Bond is an unrefined, reckless, unpolished, aggressive, injury prone, cold blooded killer. In essence, a raw piece of meat, that as the film goes on and he gains more experience becomes this prime piece of sirloin. All the Bond signatures we've all come to love and expect are not a part of Bond's nature, but gradually falls into place at the right moments through his experiences. The journey it took to get there is the most fun to watch.

What makes Bond such a fan favorite in the past was the way the writers and directors romanticized the character. Bond always had the best gadgets (toys), cool clothes, money, he traveled, women galore, he was smooth, he could fight and play a mean game of cards. Who wouldn't want to be him? Casino Royale took it one step further and said, "What kind of man emotionally would it take to be a double O agent and what are the dangers involved in such an exciting career?" Casino Royale's Bond is bruised, bloodied, beaten, stabbed, poisoned and tortured in several occasions. He walks around half the film covered in scabs and scars. He is detached from his feelings and makes a clear statement how he prefers married women because it is less complicated. With no family and friends, he truly is a man alone with nothing to live for, which makes him the perfect candidate for a double O agent.

I have not given away too much of the plot, for it is better for all Bond fans to see Casino Royale and experience it for one's self. It's one of the best Bond film to come out in decades and ranks in my top 2 or 3 of James Bond films of all time.

A quick note... it is important to remember that this story is supposed to be about Bond before he become the James Bond we all know and love. It's his first time being a double O agent. This is why the writers took liberties with the opening gun barrel scene, the vodka martini, the Aston Martin, and the infamous "Bond, James Bond". I found it a great choice to a very old and established character. We get to see how Bond becomes Bond. Think "Batman Begins", which was another great film.

Well, they have decided to 'modernize' Bond, to adapt the series to the new century..., and everybody seems to love it! Unfortunately for me, I don't.

They have made the Bond character into something human, real, almost your regular every day guy. And (how very politically correct, in pace with the times) he is vulnerable, he has feelings, he falls in love and even resigns from MI-5...! (M's reactions to this - also very politically correct - is literally a motherly: 'Don't worry about it, we can talk about this later'... Give me a break! James Bond should not be a 'regular' human being, James Bond is a mythological animal, and it would have been so much better if they had kept it that way. At least for me. Even the girls are not what they used to be. Now they are all over 30, are called 'women' and have PhD's instead of bikinis! Once again, how very politically correct... What have we come to as a society if even James Bond has to be politically correct? Think about it. Isn't it sad?

Not that this is a bad movie, because it isn't (even though it also has many shortcomings - for example, Montenegro looks more like MonteCarlo, while the reality in that young country couldn't be more different, at least for now), it's just that it isn't a Bond movie any more. A scene that illustrates this best is one in which at a certain point, when asked the proverbial question 'shaken or stirred?' Daniel Craig answers literally "Do I look as though I give a damn?". Call me a nostalgic, but no, this definitely isn't Bond any more.

I saw my first James Bond movie as a young teenager during the height of the Cold War, and have been a big fan ever since. Ian Fleming's main character launched an American spy craze that included everything from the sitcom "Get Smart" to "007" cologne. Bond was incredibly handsome, with a dashing British charm that women wanted and men wanted to be like. Sure, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan grew a tad long of tooth and made a film or two more than they should have, but under what rock did they find Daniel Craig? My yardman would look better in a tuxedo, and, could probably act better. Craig reminded me of the school bully who grew up to work as a collection specialist for a loan shark. "Casino Royale" did have some moments of great photography, and Eva Green was breathtaking to behold. But constant fights and chase scenes than ran way too long were constantly interrupted by a most confusing story line. And the ending where Vesper locks herself in an underwater elevator cage to drown was just plain stupid. You would have thought that during one of their many romps, that she'd come to believe that James Bond could save her and her kidnapped boyfriend. I was totally disappointed in the latest in a long line of great films, and sorely missed Q's gadgetry and the dashing womanizing hero of old.

this is really a Bruce Willis or Arnie film, not a Bond film at all.

The pre-credit sequence is boring with zero humour or panache in Craig's delivery of the punch line.

Judy Dench is looking old and completely out of place in a film that is supposed to go back to the beginnings of Bond. And we have the oldest cliché in the book of Bond at odds with his superior, blah blah, done in every cop film since the dawn of time.

The Sony product placement is just crass throughout for a Sony/Columbia picture. Is this a movie or an advert? The title song is instantly forgettable with lyrics mumbled.

The cartoon credit sequence is the poorest graphics since Dr No, simply boring with no imagination or wow factor. It looks cheap compared to the great graphics we have come to expect and makes the whole film look cheap compared to greater Cubby Brocolli efforts.

Craig is not debonair, tall, dark or handsome and has no wit or class, totally miscast as Bond. He would be better as the villain's No 2 henchman rather than Bond.

The idea that the world's terrorists depend on a legitimate casino game to fund their activities is as ludicrous as Moonraker's laser guns or Die Another's invisible car, but this is the whole plot of the film.

There are 3 good action sequences and the rest is FAR too long. The love story bit dialogue between Bond and Vesper particularly is yawn inducing with no chemistry between the actors on screen, and Vesper's suicide at the end particularly contrived and unbelievable. The whole end sequence of destroying a Venician building shows no imagination and is obviously just tagged on as an afterthought.

In conclusion it's just another formula action film with none of the class and features that make a good Bond film. The hero could have been any cop/agent/private investigator so the whole has none of the distinctive and memorable scenes that always went into a Bond film.

A big disappointment.

Okay so here's my 2 cents. If we go back to Goldeneye we learn that M (Judy Dench) hadn't been head of MI6 for that long since Bond (Pierce Brosnan you are missed) mentions that her predecessor kept some cognac... hinting that since he last had a drink in that office there was another M in charge... which couldn't have been that long ago. With that in mind, how is it we jump back in time to the beginning of when Bond became a 00 agent and with Judy Dench still playing the part? Sean Connery was the first, George Lazenby was an accident, a total mistake, Roger Moore was the wimp and a gentleman. Timothy Dalton played the cold-hearted Bond, who wasn't a gentleman, but an agent who wanted the job to be over and done with, he was good. And then we have Pierce Brosnan, the gorgeous, charming gentleman that not only could get the job done, he got it done with style, finesse and he even got the girl in the end. Yes, he was perfect, perfect as Bond and simply the perfect man altogether. Now as for Daniel Craig... He did an okay job of playing a cold version of Bond, but that's already been done by Timothy Dalton. He couldn't charm anyone even if he paid them, he does NOT look good in a suit, and by smashing the Aston Martin he is no gentleman... And he's blonde. His body is too big for his head, or his head is to small for his body, whichever way, he is not the right Bond. I heard somewhere that there was this whole thing about how he emerged out of the water and the scene wasn't supposed to be in the movie, but since all the females (and males) were gasping because of his torso, the scene stayed in. I've seen better. Yes there was that freaky scene where he is tortured by getting his jewels smashed in a few times, and then he just passed out. He didn't have his super stunning tooth (or whatever. Since he was naked... he could have had a secret weapon attached to his nipple) that could knock anyone out for hours and his trusty watch to cut him loose, no... there was no O, P, Q or R branch that could save him. And then there was the Ford Focus.. granted it was car of the year some years ago, but seriously, if I wanted to see a Ford I would have just gone to the showroom! I wanted to see the amazing sports cars, this was a James Bond movie, super agent with all the cool gadgets that one can hope for and the super cars one can only hope to be in the proximity of. That's my rant. I give this movie a 1/10. Not near as interesting as any of the other James Bond movies... including never say never again.

I am a big Bond fan, and this is the first one that I haven't seen at the cinema since Diamonds are Forever in 1971. I saw the DVD yesterday and what a disappointment.

Firstly the good stuff, the locations are original, which is not easy when the franchise has been going round the world for 40+ years, and the photography is excellent ( the cranes against the ocean during the chase, the colours of the sites around lake como)and Judi Dench is always excellent..... and that's pretty much it.

Now the list of moans Daniel Craig is not my idea of Bond, the publicity machine seems to have gone into overdrive about Mr Craig, but nobody that i know who has personally seen the film liked it or him. Craig at times looks more like a down and out rather than a suave agent. He was good in Layer Cake but has zero charisma in this The basic plot (Bond takes on financier for international terrorism) is a good start but has numerous stupid ideas that spoil it for example why would Bond break into M's flat rather than just talk to her in her office? The chronology of the film is all wrong, it clearly shows it's set in 2006 but disregards all his other background, for me this didn't work. the film then drifts off into the overlong card game, with the ridiculous defibrillator scene The villain is rubbish - his "gadget" is an asthma inhaler! my mum could take him out and she's 81! Bond is fooled by everyone, the women, the villain, the bloke who is meant to be helping him, he has to rescued by the bad guys! he gets beaten up loads as well and he gets tortured, and in an embarrassing way, Connery would have bitten through the ropes and killed the guy with the chair! The girls aren't memorable enough some of the lines are pathetic, one is about "if all that was left of you was your hat(?) and your little finger".....embarrassing. Personally I want to go to see escapist Bond, charming the ladies, killing the baddies, always being one step ahead, and always having something witty to say. If I wanted the so called depressing realism I'd look in the mirror. Bottom Line ( no pun intended after the reference to the torture scene)if you didn't have Judi Dench in this, it could pass as just another Bourne/transporter/crank type of average action movie. This is a poor addition to the Bond series. Very disappointing.I hope that they ensure the people who wrote this, don't have anything to do with the next one.

for the first time James Bond has a strong homo-erotic appeal - you see a lot more male than female nakedness, and then there is, of course, the gay sadomasochistic torture scene where the naked "Bond" has his genitals whipped by a male villain. Where most previous Bonds' main strengths were charm and elegance - this one's a testosterone junkie - a gym locker-room wet dream - and not much else! I really don't mind - but it's not what I expect and it doesn't appeal to me! The screenplay is extremely poor and too much of it doesn't work or doesn't make any sense at all - what was supposed to be inside the metal briefcase near the end in Venice - 10 million in cash?! I don't really mind if the plot is unrealistic - but then it should be funny through exaggeration or parody - which this one certainly isn't! Looks like the makers of this one couldn't quite make up their minds as to what they're trying to do - so in the end they left some of the classic elements (crane chase, airport incident) but not enough to call it an 007 film!

Well it appears that the Bond film makers went horribly wrong with this one and I have grave concerns about subsequent bonds. There are many things wrong, minor and major, including:

INTRO I appreciate we are "at the beginning" of the bond saga. But that's no reason to abandon the tradition opening and then insert it at the point of his first kill. I'm sure it sounded good on paper, but was an early indication that the Bond formula (that we never seem to get tired of!) was going to be varied.

OPENING CREDITS I don't mind a bit of variation, but I prefer silhouettes of naked women doing gymnastics. This one looked like it was made with a computer from the 70s and the title song was less than memorable.

DANIEL CRAIG That guy should never play bond again... ever. He is wooden, lifeless and completely lacks the suave and cheekiness of the other Bonds. Pierce Brosnan didn't get it right until the second Bond, but even in Goldeneye, he seemed to have the makings of a good Bond. With Craig, I struggle to see how they'll turn it around and make him a Bond we will all love.

THE LOVE STORY Oh please! This got so schmaltzy in parts that I completely forgot that I was actually watching a Bond. To make matters worse, I didn't feel that the chemistry between them was convincing. When it become really serious, it became eye-rolling.

THE PLOT Well there really wasn't much of a plot at all. I know the "destroy the world or some part thereof" plots have been done to death, but this was simply about beating a terrorist in a card game to starve him of money and therefore force him to talk to save his skin. Butif Bond loses, they (MI6) will effectively be "financing terrorism". Again, may have looked good on paper - one of those "the stakes couldn't be higher" type deals - but in the end, it didn't deliver. Throw in a few double crosses to teach bond that he can't trust anyone... and that's about as complicated as the story gets.

GADGETS Where were they? The most complicated thing in the whole film was (a) the defibrillator in the car and (b) going through another persons mobile phone to read their sms's. Oh yes - we had him using his laptop on a boat, but even I can do that these days. As per usual, there was no shortage of product placement.

FEW STUPID MISTAKES I have a word limit so I won't do a list here. But there were plenty of them. Here is one: he dives into the water to get her out of the elevator with her phone in his pocket. That model is not water proof, but works perfectly minutes later (after it's been 50 feet under water for 3 minutes or so). And the fact that it still worked was crucial to the ending. Small errors here and there and not everyone would catch them, but they appear throughout. Needless to say that if they are big on product placement, they shouldn't pass off a non-water proof phone as water proof.

COMEDY Where is the cheeky bond with double entrandes, dry British humour and sharp whit? I think the problem is that Bond is portrayed as too much of a destructive arrogant evil bastard rather than a sly & smooth, yet deadly secret agent. Again - not convinced that Craig can pull this off in subsequent Bonds.

THE POKER GAME Here we go. Well I do play poker myself. So I can confirm that the hands that came up in the game were ridiculous - especially the last one. You could play the game for 20 years and never get a hand where four players have a flush, a full house, a bigger full house and a straight flush between them. Very unrealistic, but I won't sit around poking holes in that too much because it is a movie after all.

M: For some reason, I felt Judi Dench looked almost...... uncomfortable in this film. She was given a bigger role that usual and carried the same stern attitude she has in other bonds, but I think she was better suited playing off Brosnan. Something was wrong in this one. Perhaps the whole affair was all too serious and mean spirited for her liking. Or perhaps she simply can't work well with Craig (which doesn't surprise me).

CONCLUSION I felt that this had all the tools of the bond, but just wasn't one. We had the Aston Martin, a dangerous villain, bond was able to get himself out of any situation, fast action, casinos, cocktails and beautiful women dancing around all over the place (though in my view, 95% of them looked extremely anorexic to me). But despite many of the fundamentals making an appearance, I just didn't feel like I was watching a bond at all. This could have been just a simple stand-alone spy movie (and an ordinary one at that).

This does dishonor to the bond franchise, as does Daniel Craig. At times, I felt that they tried to make the action, the love story and the game take centre stage and Craig was there just working through the script, whereas, in other bonds, it is James Bond who takes centre stage the whole way through. The bottom line is that the film just didn't come together and didn't ring true as a Bond.

Even Die Another Day was a pretty decent Bond. But this one took a major wrong turn with a pointless, shallow plot that only marginally unfolded in the closing 10 minutes. It was way too long and I lost interest in parts. There was a fairly evil undertone to Bond as well which I wasn't comfortable with.

Probably the worst bond to date.

This film was awful. Firstly, Daniel Craig is a pathetic Bond. In the end he was actually willing to resign for a girl. James Bond would NEVER do that. He would never fall in love, I know that for a fact. Secondly, there are no gadgets in the film either. I expected there to be many more. The movie also dragged on for way too long, and it didn't get any more interesting either. It was boring from the first second, and it stayed that way until the end. From the first five minutes I was already begging for it to finish.

The story is extremely confusing and very difficult to follow, and the romance between Bond and Vesper seemed ridiculous because there was no chemistry between them at all.

Daniel Craig is not the James Bond I know, he's an impostor. Blond, unattractive, and most importantly he's weak and screams when he's being tortured, he doesn't try to escape in an ingenious way. And he doesn't give a damn about how he wants his Martini!

Casino Royale is a good action film in itself, but it is most definitely NOT a Bond film. If they hadn't tried to make it as one, it would have been great. It really is a shame.

I really don't see what all the fuss about this film is about. I wouldn't waste my time or my money with this.

Right from the start, it is evident that the James Bond making his debut in 'Casino Royale' bears small, if any, resemblance to his predecessors. Gone are the gadgets, the gimmicks, the one-liners and general good-natured silliness. James Bond, shortly to receive the fateful designation of 007, as portrayed by Daniel Craig, is brutal (see the very violent pre-credits fight), ruthless, and regards killing as an everyday activity that does not impinge upon himself as a person. Whereas Brosnan's Bond had the glimmerings of a sense of honour ("I usually hate killing an unarmed man, cold-blooded murder is a filthy business" he utters in 'The World is Not Enough') and even sometimes of compassion, Daniel Craig as Bond is the man who would shoot you in the head without even pausing to look you in the eye.

Indeed, (almost) everything about this whole film is re-invented - okay, they've kept the stunning women, beautiful locations, brilliant action sequences (the standout being a chase across a building site that induces vertigo even when sitting safely in a cinema seat) and the scene-stealing performance from Judi Dench as M, but everything else is fresh and new. This is Bond re-invented from the ground up.

Which is probably a good thing. Although the Bond franchise slid a bit off track with Pierce Brosnan's last film, the general consensus is he was the best since Connery and would have been a tough act to follow had the original formula been stuck to. Daniel Craig on the other hand hasn't got so much of a shadow to step out from, and this can only work to his advantage when his most eloquent acting is done minus words - as aforementioned, Bond's usual quips are noticeable by their absence and only a little sparring with the more than equal-to-the-task Vesper Lynd hints at Bond's liking for double entendres.

So, on to the biggest question of them all - is Craig a Bond to beat them all or a trouble-oh seven? Call me a wimp if you will, but I'm going to reserve judgement. Craig is James Bond in this film through sheer force of will - he is Bond because everyone in the film just BELIEVES he is so much. You can almost feel the director and the camera willing him to become the 007 of Ian Fleming's imagination. Whether or not Craig can inhabit the role as Connery or Brosnan did and make it his own it still up for debate - but then this is only his first outing. He could be fantastic - emphasis on the COULD.

But whether or not he is Bond, Craig is a terrific action hero, leaping from cranes, shooting bad guys and generally wrecking havoc in the name of Queen and Country. Mads Mikkelson does himself proud as Le Chiffre, a baddie so bad he weeps blood. Eva Green is suitably luminous as Vesper Lynd, a woman who entrances even the stony-hearted 007, and the action is glorious enough to plug the holes in a flimsy plot. Oh, and did I mention Judi Dench rocks as M? If this is Bond reborn, it's good to see he's retained just a few things from his previous life.

This is utter rubbish, both in its own right and as a James Bond film.

I do not even see a proper plot here. All we see are episodes that are stitched together, but do not result in a story that is being told. The film ends with a confusing anti-climax and the villain is killed off before he even managed to do any real harm, in a scene where he didn't fight back at all. It's like introducing a killer whom we have never seen before to kill Goldfinger whole he is reading his newspapers. That alone tells you just how incompetent the writers are.

But then we have the character of Bond and his 'romance' that is on the level of those cheap novels women masturbate to. It is complete rubbish.

And what about Bond himself and his colleagues? Oh, he is now an emo that takes long showers to fight his depression. He works for what looks like his grandmother (???) and the director seems to think he should be turned into an object of desire for the homosexual section of the audience.

Everything about this film is awkward, and demonstrates the destruction of masculinity, the devastating impact of feminism and political correctness, and the general twisted state of our civilisation.

By the way, half the action scenes are filmed in the shaky cam + 'ten cuts a second' mode, so you won't have a clue what is going on in them anyway. And if that's not enough to alienate you, there are plenty of poorly executed love scenes. If you on top of that have no interest in cards, you will be seriously bored - half the film is Bond playing cards in a casino.

As for Bond's famous one-liners: there are none.

Utter rubbish. Zero stars.

Thsi film is no James Bond film at all. It misses all the charme, elegance and class of the series and is merely another action film of the kind of Lethal Weapon or 24. It was boring and unsatisfying, and Daniel Craig is just miscast. I am a big fan of the James Bond films, but I was very disappointed in this one. Why were they trying to destroy the myth of James Bond? He never war a cold hearted, brutal killer. Her usually got the girl and not got all of them killed. He was charming and a gentleman of subtle wit. And he was good looking. Somehow all of that was missing in this film. And why on earth was this about Bond besoming 007, if the setting was nowadays? Surely it should have taken place in the 60ies? Whoever tried to reinvent Bond in this film ruined it for me.

Where to start? I don't know.., really! But after the "fabulous" black&white "pre title-sequence" (yawn) the newly styled opener came up I was like "okay, let's leave the theater", we didn't, I suffered through some of the worst, 2+ hours of my poor little life. anyway, I don't want to make this too long because this one doesn't deserve it: I just purely hated it, it's not James it's the Broccoli-Clan trying to stay in the cash-flow, the "we tried to modernize the old Bond"-kind of cash-flow. When I saw the first wigged stuntman on the cranes it was really over - don't put money in this, please - it's garbage - sorry lovers!

after all the controversy surrounding the reboot and the casting of Daniel Craig it comes as a surprise that Casino Royale is such an unmemorable movie.

It begins well with a very nice black and white and( after a woeful title song)has a spirited free running chase.

Unfortunately after this it all goes wrong. The pacing is slow, the action non-existent and Mads Mikkelson is the blandest Bond villain ever..in fact a couple of times I couldn't understand what he was saying.

Eva Green should have been a good Bond girl but is merely a repetitive damsel in distress,the photography is mediocre and it all looks like a Sony commercial.

To those like myself who don't play poker the poker scenes are slow torture and the torture scene is unintentionally hilarious.

David Arnold's score is his best yet but that is enough to save this bomb.

Somtimes, it seems, film makers (especially American) think they can shove whatever they want down our throats and we're going to swallow! Such is the case with 'Casino Royale' (or any other James Bond film for that matter). Isn't it amazing how Bond can walk into any place on earth and know exactly where to find what he is looking for?? In Casino Royale he simply waltzes into a 5-Star hotel's UNMANNED security room, easily finds a tape he's looking for and then finds what's he's looking for on the tape within seconds. Seriously?!? And they expect be to believe $120million can easily be withdrawn in cash (mind you!) WITHOUT any security measurements, and without the account holder present??? Bond's sports car crashes at high speed and rolls about ten times, yet the next day he walks about without even limping!! Ya-a-awn.... This is why films like King Kong are more believable: they were intended to be fantasy films where reality can be thrown overboard. James Bond films (Transporter, Fast & Furious, ANY Marvel superhero film, etc,) substitute credibility for effect. Even these 'effective' action sequences can be terribly daunting to watch if they are senseless. Some credit due to Casino Royale, though, the action scenes are much more believable than the crap they write into the latest Fast & Furious films. And - apart from being absolutely dashing - Daniel Craig makes a credible Bond. (Oh, and the love interest scenes in Casino Royale were absolutely pathetic and so blatantly forced, it hurts.) Bond is a Casanova, keep it that way!

From the write ups on this movie I was thinking it was going to be closer to the novels. It looks like it started out that way but they wound up putting in so many holes into the plot in order to have a particular action scene they lost me. Some big and some small. Here are some examples: 1. Bond kills the suspected bomber in the African embassy then blows it up. Next action but at the start of the scene they made a point of saying they wanted the guy alive. Why couldn't Bond just get out then try to pick him up again later? This one is a small point and could be written off as poor judgment or maybe he didn't want him alive so badly after all. It would seem that he was a lot closer to escaping earlier in the sequence and Bond never thought about shooing him then.

2. The top bomber was being hired to drive a gasoline truck into a parked airplane? And a giant airplane to boot? Why did that need a top agent? I think the people in Iraq have shown it doesn't take a lot of skill to deliver a car bomb. If they wanted a top guy couldn't he have used a rocket or a remotely controlled vehicle? It seems to have been done this way just for the Indiana Jones type fight in the truck cab.

3. A big one - the CIA was going to pick up Mr One Eye. Felix Leiter tells Bond it's set. The next thing we know Mr One Eye is not only free from the CIA but has his crew of thugs able to kidnap people and take them away without any CIA tail. I guess you could write this off to incompetence on the part of the CIA but that is pretty bad. I had a real problem with this.

4. One-eye wants both the bank code and the password so needs the woman and Bond alive. However they leave the woman in the road where Bond could run over her and or kill himself in a crash getting out of the way. It made for a nice scene but a few minutes later when we found out the bad guys needed them alive it made no sense at all. The whole point was to get the account number and password, if one or both of them were dead how would they be able to get the money??

5. Bond is being tortured and at the last second the old man with the gun comes in and blows One-eye away. So the old man can track down the bad guys but Felix Leiter is still back asleep in the hotel? Okay so the CIA is incompetent but why did the old man kill one-eye so quickly? The airplane bomb-plot just failed a few days ago and rather than wait to see if one-eye can come up with the money he is just killed outright? What is the point of that? It's obvious that the old man doesn't have any trouble tracking down one-eye so why not at least try to get the money back? If the old man wanted the girl to give him the money that is okay but why let one-eye off the hook? If the money is that important why not break one of his legs or something. I don't think many loan sharks would stay in business if they killed someone the 1st time they said they asked for a few days extension.

6. So right after Bond goes through hell the girl decides to screw him over because someone (the old man?) has kid napped her old boy friend? At this point she didn't trust Bond enough to let him try to help? MI-5 sent her on this mission with $15 million and she was being blackmailed? So they are incompetent too? And their man on the scene turned as well? Or did Bond screw that up? Between the CIA and the MI-5 screw ups you have to wonder what is the point?

It seemed like I was back in the Roger Moore days by the end of the movie. Daniel Craig was good but I really don't think James Bond should be the sort of man that goes to the gym to work on his pecs. I thought he would look with disdain on puffer body builders.

I am not a bond guy. I never have been and at this rate I bet I never will be. This movie had one really good action sequence and a plot that left me bored and annoyed. James was about as effective in this film as I would have been. OOO, he can play poker. That's the extent of his contribution past the blowing up of a foreign consulate in Africa. He didn't take down the bad guy. He was an idiot when it came to the girl. I was expecting something closer to the books where he'd be more of an masochistic jerk and drunk, instead we get the same old same old where he beds the woman and feels bad when they die and fights spies. Oh but at least the older movies he is effective against the spies and terrorists. Here, the CIA, other terrorists, and the chick totally save his stupid ass. I give it a 4/10

Casino Royale is the eagerly anticipated resurrection of the James Bond franchise. Besides the generational change in lead character we also witness a very different style and attitude to previous bond movies that appears to be in response to the success of the Bourne Identity action spy franchise. The similarities are often so similar that it appears that Casino Royale is paying homage to Bourne and its raw realism than one of the oldest and most successful franchises in movie history. This appears to be the film's downfall. Bourne Identity breathed life into to the spy action movie genre by substituting over the top cartoon action with brutal realism and subtle emotion. Matt Damon and the new movie franchise were so successful in achieving this that many questioned the appropriateness of a larger than life chauvinistic Bond in the 21st century (an American spy now also managed to look more cool than the legendary British agent). This argument was not hard to make when the instantly forgettable recent bond movies with Pierce Brosnan (excluding Golden Eye) were so dismal (I don't thing Brosnan was bad but the material was awful). In any case Bond desperately needed to see change and it appears that they have borrowed heavily from Bourne to achieve this. Whilst the action and fight sequences are impressive they still fail to improve on what is achieved in the Bourne franchise. However, Bond is not Bourne and there are many ingredients that go into a bond movie. Whilst Casino Royale is taking a fresh approach to the franchise one would still expect it to pay homage to its predecessors and possibly offer a fresh approach on these ingredients. Firstly lets take the characteristic car chase sequence. What is on offer in Casino Royale? A beautiful Aston Martin that is driven for less than a minute in the dark and then crashes, OK that's nice. Gadgets? A resuscitation machine, OK... Theme tune? Some random melody with no chorus or tie in with the movie that will no doubt go down as one of the worst bond themes in history. Bond Villains with a master plan? Some random financiers who seemed like fairly decent blokes... etc etc Bond needed to evolve but this appears to be a derivative of its modern day replacement. Daniel Craig is good, there are some good action sequences and the style of the movie works well (ultimately the hardest thing to achieve given the legacy of the past). Whilst the movie abandons many ingredients of the past, this could be forgiven if one left the cinema enthralled but Casino Royale is unable to achieve this. The pace of the movie is very slow in places and you really feel it, consequently the long running time is more of an ordeal than value for money. The relationship Bond has with the lead female exhibits some of the most slow paced scenes (alongside the Casino games) and whilst the twists and turns are interesting they don't seem to work very well and are a little confused. The final 30 minutes of the movie is a let down and a far cry from the grand finale's of past bond movies (or any action movie really) Casino Royale is not a bad movie but does not really offer the viewer a fast paced action thriller, any real plot development or any real emotional depth (arguably a necessary substitute for the elimination of traditional bond ingredients). It does however offer a very different style to its predecessors and a strong lead character that has consequently generated huge interest in the new franchise. So whilst Bourne may remain supreme, he may have to watch his back in the future.

When Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, unlike many I did not hold my hands up in despair, and predict a flop. I was willing to give him a chance, and certainly felt he could give something different to the role.

Sadly, this film left me with an extreme sense of frustration. Perhaps due to my high hopes for the film, and the many positive reviews? And yet, it seems beyond my personal expectations. The film tried too hard to be different, the end result being an entirely different Bond film, but a very unoriginal Hollywoodised action flick.

Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal edge to Bond, but what Hollywood action hero isn't tough and brutal? In fact, it was the desire for Hollywood action that ruined this film for me.

For example, the scene containing free running (parkour) near the beginning epitomises the desire for great action, and little sense. If you recall, there is a moment where Bond decides to climb into some sort of demolition vehicle. Yes, it looked great as the vehicle came crashing through a concrete wall, but if we actually think about it, there was no need whatsoever? It did not achieve anything, not just in terms of film artistry, but also plot - it didn't help him catch the bad guy!

The free running itself was another attempt by the director to wow the audience into submission, there was quite literally no point to it whatsoever. Why on earth did the villain decide to go up a crane? - "I know, I can escape him by climbing to the top of a crane" - No my friend you would have been better off finding yourself a car. I am not surprised this film has been received well and that it is a hit at the box office - but I'm sorry Mr.Campbell, I see through you.

I will openly admit I found the poker scenes enjoyable, and I found Mads Mikklesen's performance particularly enjoyable.

Not a bad effort, and it does indeed breathe new life into the Bond genre, but I could quite easily go down to Blockbuster, search the action section for 5 minutes and find something just as good! Ultimately, what I found offensive about this film, was that all involved seemed to believe that if they throw a load of heavy duty action scenes at the audience to satisfy us - not this film goer I'm afraid.. 5/10

The latest Bond outing, Casino Royale, starring Daniel Craig in the leading role, is over-hyped rubbish. Sorry. I know it has plentiful fans and critical support, but I was thoroughly unimpressed by the whole experience.

I had high hopes for this film. After the dire Die Another Day, I couldn't see any other direction for the franchise to go, but up. How wrong I was.

In truth, the Bourne franchise, with Matt Damon as the super-cool tough guy Jason Bourne, fighting against the worst excesses of the US secret services, has knocked Bond for six. The dark, gritty froideur of Bourne and the imaginative direction from first Doug Liman and then Paul Greengrass ensured Bond looked kitsch and laboured in comparison. Bond producers were rightly concerned. Their solution, it seemed, was to emulate Bourne. Big mistake!

Bond and Bourne are based on entirely different premises. James Bond is an insider, he works for Mi6, and according to Ian Fleming, Bond is Eton-educated, a man born out of British imperialist traditions. (Although in this new version of Casino Royale, Bond is strictly State-school).

Jason Bourne is an outsider of uncertain origin - a CIA-trained killing machine who is now intent on recovering his identity. Thus, however maverick or disobedient Bond may be, he is ultimately on government pay, whereas Bourne is a social outcast, unearthing the dark and sinister secrets underpinning the State - the prime source of all the best paranoid conspiracy theories, which epitomise the uncertain, fearful world we live in today. From this point of view, Bond is pretty much stuffed.

Casino Royale is even further hampered by its lack of a decent plot-line. Yes, yes, we know this is now post 9/11 ... Judi Dench's M tells us this in the starkest terms possible. But this has little effect on plot detail it seems. Even the rise of extremist Islamic terrorism hasn't informed the new look Bond, in spite of being viewed world over as the major terrorist force of our times.

So what do we get with Casino Royale? A muddled narrative which focuses on financial fraud - namely fixing stock prices by means of sponsoring terrorist actions. Which terrorists? Well, we never learn this vital piece of information.

Our 'Bond Villain' is the terrorist money-man, Mads Mikkelson, complete with a creepy bleeding tear-duct, who has lost $150m and needs to recoup it in a poker game. Wow whoopee .... edge of the seat stuff ... I was almost crying with boredom. The plot thus revolved, seemingly, around this $150m, and Bond's sharpest card-playing tactics to prevent it falling into the wrong hands. Now I hate to be flippant - but let's face it, $150m is diddly-squat in the big scheme of things.

To be fair, the opening scenes, Bond's first kills, were fantastic. And then there was an exciting high wire crane-chase with Bond hunting down a bomb-maker in Madagascar. All good stuff. We then had a mildly riveting action sequence at Miami airport with Bond trying to save a new Skyfleet super-plane from being blown up by the bad guys. But it went dramatically downhill from there.

Bond was dispatched to Montenegro and the interminable poker game at the heart of the film - which was punctuated, mercifully, by a few bouts of unbridled violence. This sequence culminated in a much-hyped torture scene, and then there was an endless coda in Venice, when Bond discovers the true perfidy of Vesper Lynd, the slink Missy he has fallen for.

Lynd was played by the stylish French actress Eva Green, whose plummy British vowels sounded like she was gobbling clumps of broken china and had a bad cold to boot, poor dear. Plus, her natural good looks were swamped by lashings of thick black kohl.

As for Bond himself. Could Daniel Craig overcome his critics? In a word, no ... Except, yes. The critics have positively wet themselves with surprised glee, admiration and probably contrition at Craig's Bond. This universal acclaim has declared him to be the best Bond since Connery. How can this be??

I seriously wonder if I am living on an alternative planet ... Craig's Bond was mediocre, at best (and believe me, I was cheesed-off at the whiny Craig-bashing pre-Bond). His primary facial expression was a strangely screwed-up, pursed-lip 'thing' which riled me. His voice is flat and toneless and he lacked charisma. Worse still, he is humourless.

OK so we know the famous Bond 'quips' were a non-starter in this all-new, oh-so-serious Bond ... well Bond producers, scriptwriters et al, get over yourselves! We need a Bond with a 'twinkle' - even while dispatching the villains with calculated, sociopathic violence. Bond's wit is an essential ingredient. Jason Bourne, of course, does not need to be funny. That is not his style, which is born out of anguish, pain, a sense of loss. But then again, this is not Bourne. I'll just repeat that. THIS IS NOT BOURNE.

Craig, in fairness, was given precious little to work with. He is a fine actor. But in Casino Royale, the script is risible. During the interminable poker- game we actually get 'commentary' from one of the secondary characters, Mathis (Giancarlo Gianninni). And still, the game doesn't make sense.

On the plus side, the locations are magnificent. Montenegro is a combination here of the Czech Republic and Italy's spectacular Lake Como, and the Bahamas look fabulous. As a deluxe tourist brochure Casino Royale is at its very best.

I was surprised to see that Martin Campbell had directed this film so poorly. I loved Goldeneye. It was outlandish, silly, occasionally hammy, but boy, was it a thrilling ride!! But this seems far too much like good, old-fashioned audience-pleasing fun for the new look po-faced Bond.

When I walked into the theaters to see this movie I was not expecting much, but, Wow, what a piece of crap!

This movie does in no way meet the high standards set by the other Bond movies. Some say that it is still a good action flick, but hey, which movie did those people watch? Well, I suppose not this movie, or they've maybe fallen asleep during those awfully boring poker scenes. That would explain how some say, that it could go through as a "good" action movie. Because if you cut out that poker crap, you really have some decent action here, but those fifteen minutes can't help the movie.

So, in order to help those fans, that still want to see the movie, to save some money, I'll round up the story now:

Bond kills one guy in a loo, then kills another guy in an office.

Music.

Bond kills a terrorist after chasing him. (Until now roughly ten minutes have passed)

Bond plays Poker, and does some advertising for SONY, OMEGA and FORD. (Now there are only 20 minutes to the end)

The bad guy captures Bond and his Lady, tortures him and gets killed by another bad guy that has not yet been introduced to us.

Bond awakes in a hospital, travels to Venice with his girl. A house collapses, she gets killed and Bond kills the other bad guy that inexplicably seems to be the mastermind.

And I paid money for that!

Just saw the movie. It definitely is a change of direction for the franchise and the series, appealing to a different viewer than the first 20 Bond films. In no particular order: (1) Unusual opening that didn't feature a great chase sequence to some sort of surprise; (2) No "R" (John Cleese), with the only gadgetry of the life-saving nature...no Moneypenny for that matter; (3) No megalomaniac/rule the world type of singular enemy; (4) Bond isn't a ladies man, nor are they particularly interested in him; (5) No significant car chase scenes (the airport struggle was creative, however); (6) A lot of vulnerable moments for Bond; (7) the infamous lines are skipped (shaken, not stirred) or deferred (Bond, James Bond); (8) the comic relief is minimal, delayed until at least 1/3-1/2 way through, and some of the jokes are missed altogether due to their lengthy development; (9) the famous Monty Norman music is largely ignored and delayed until the end, almost as if an afterthought or an annoying prerequisite (although the up-tempo music used in the beginning was interesting); (10) Bond falls in love, something not really seen since On Her Majesty's Secret Service, where the reasons were far clearer; (11) Craig plays a rougher Bond, even topping Dalton in this regard, and a bloodier Bond (although he heals remarkably quickly and illogically between scenes); (12) Judi Dench is showing her age and really is an almost-cameo character who, in this film, distrusts Bond; (13) there are excellent foot chase scenes; (14) a lot of the verbiage is missed as it's close to if not "under the breath" (I recommend turning subtitles on when it's out on video), particularly at the black and white type of beginning when it was crucial to get on board as to the plot; and (15)it's long, seeming to miss a natural ending about 1/2 hour before the actual ending. Plot-wise, it was confusing to this long-time Bond film watcher that Craig was bestowed a "double O" status in this show when Dench was in the film, when it was more logical to skip the fact that this was the first book and merely portray it as continuing the Bond legacy with a new episode and still another actor in that role. The standpoint that was taken felt similar to the making of "Never Say Never Again" which was reportedly an attempt to improve "Thunderball." Craig didn't gain instant acceptance as Bond with this viewer as Moore and Brosnan did, who were in familiar detective roles pre-Bond (The Saint and Remington Steele, respectively), so the jury is out for him like it was for Dalton. More importantly, the significant structural changes might just well relegate future Bond releases to DVD watching.

Craig has the brawn, but definitely lacks the charisma to be a true bond. His scenes with every girl are very flat and lack chemistry. Eva Green is a great bond girl, but Bond's "lines" come out uninspired. Whereas Brosnan was all flash and little substance, Craig provides the gritty, tough fight scenes that have been missing but isn't able to exude the same level of charm that James Bond requires.

The plot line is also bad. Without revealing too many spoilers, is the audience really supposed to believe that the big, bad plan of the main villain is a poker game? This isn't a WSOP episode on ESPN, this is a Bond movie.

In conclusion:

Fight scenes good Everything else bad

Was this a good action film? Yes, it was; it was probably one of the best action films that I've seen in a while. But that speaks more about the low quality of today's action films than Casino Royale's high quality. Was this a good Bond film? Yes, it was better than Brosnan's worst (Tomorrow) but not near his best (Goldeneye). I like Daniel Craig as an actor, but he doesn't seem comfortable in the Bond role.

Watch The Prestige instead.

Two quick points to make here.

First, that opening chase. It's a staple of the series to begin the film with a speedy pursuit. Forget Bond films. This is one of the most exciting of its kind in any movie I have ever seen. The best exploitation of space. And the clever abandonment of gadgetry in favor of the human body only. (Is there a more clever gadget, anyways?)

Second. Poker has inherently cinematic possibilities that have never been mined in any film I have seen. The game is many things, but is primarily an acting competition. Who's the most convincing? So there's room for all sorts of experiment in acting, yet films I have seen featuring poker all seem to rely on the "poker face" instead. It's anti-acting instead of the potentially thrilling possibility of meta-acting. Bummer.

Not that Craig could have approached pulling it off, anyways.

This film was a response to many people feeling that "Die Another Day" is too over-the-top and too ridiculous, even for Bond. They intended to bring the series back to its roots. People loved this movie, but I really don't see why. As a huge James Bond fan, this film is pretty much free of what makes the Bond series fun.

The new Bond is Daniel Craig. He would get better later in his tenure as Bond, but here he isn't very appealing. He is more like Jason Bourne than Bond, and he comes off as too much of a thug.

The film itself is incredibly boring. 3/4 of the movie is nothing but poker playing. Mads Mikkelsen as LeChiffre is a pretty dull villain, and there are some parts of the movie that are just way too violent.

No Q, no Moneypenny, no humor, no gadgets, and most of all, no fun. I don't care if this was closer to Fleming's Bond, this was just not enjoyable at all.

The film does have some saving graces. For one, Eva Green as Vesper Lynd is a strong contender for best Bond girl ever. She's utterly beautiful and has an engaging personality. This is the first time since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" that Bond was truly in love.

The action in the last act of the film is thrilling, and "You Know My Name" by Chris Cornell is a personal favorite of mine. Judi Dench was her usual great self as M.

These saving graces make this a mediocre film instead of a terrible one.

RATING: C

I have to admit. In the beginning I was a doubter of Craig's ability. The press set him up badly, using bad pictures to shed a bad light on him, I didn't think he was the man for the role that was until the teaser trailer. I then started to realise how good he was, and boy was he good!! Daniel Craig has reset the standards for Bond. Moving away from the 'pretty boy' Bond look that Pierce Brosnan brought to the series, Craig takes Bond to his roots.

He shows that he isn't superman. Bond DOES get injured (he DOES make genuine mistakes) and it takes his relationships with the other characters to a whole other level and puts them in a new light.

Craig is a gritty Bond, he's a freshly promoted 00 agent with no experience. He's a ' half hit man half monk This is the wake up call the Bond series has needed for too long. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would highly recommend it to any fan of the James Bond series.

I hope that Craig will return as Bond in the next film, and that this is the start of a new series.

Well done 007, you've finally grown up

When the movie first starts, you think that it is something of a terrorist plot with the code name of ellipse and the constant chase scene from one place to another. The stunt work is fabulous and I have to admit I have never seen anything quite like it, but then the story makes no sense. We are not told why he is after the frenchman to start with. We think we are following the plot at the airport when all of the sudden we are taken elsewhere to the casino with no apparent idea of why he is in this game. The frenchman loses all the money on the stock market on purpose?? and then he plays in a high stakes poker game. Also, the gianni character..mathis..he is completely out of place. We don't know what he is supposed to be doing. Also if the boy friend of vesper is being held for ransom, and she is a high level British government worker from the treasury representing the money factor, don't you think they would know about her background? She would have to have some type of security clearance and she already had access to the money so why would she go through the charade of having to play the part at the poker game. I was very disappointed and I have to say it was the worst bond film yet.

After a few disappointing films it looked like the the Bond franchise may have died after the unremarkable "Die Another Day", thankfully somebody had the bright idea of taking Bond back to his roots and rebooting the series with a story based on the first of Ian Flemming's novels. Gone are the stream of one liners, excessive gadgets and thankfully there is no obvious CGI either. We still have lots of action and it looks real and there is a sense that Bond isn't invincible, it looks like he is really suffering. Some may feel that seeing a naked Bond being tortured in a particularly gruelling scene doesn't belong in a Bond film however this scene is taken from the book.

After an opening where we see Bond earn his Double O status and the opening song we see the main bad guy, Le Chiffre, take delivery of a large sum of money from an African warlord, he invests in a way that in order to make money a promising aircraft manufacturers shares must tumble rather. Bond meanwhile is on the trail of a bomber in Madagascar while he is low level a message stored on his phone leads Bond to the Bahamas where he discovers a plot to destroy a prototype aircraft in Miami. Not surprisingly Bond foils this in spectacular fashion which leaves Le Chiffre desperately short of cash. He attempts to get it back in a high stakes poker game at the titular Casino Royale. Bond of course is sent in to clear him out in an attempt to force Le Chiffre to come over to MI6 and disclose his connections. For this mission Bond is joined by Vesper Lynd from the Treasury who is initially unimpressed with Bond. Once the game starts it becomes apparent that Le Chiffre is both a good player and somebody willing to take desperate measures to make sure he wins.

Daniel Craig makes a fantastic impression in his first outing as Bond in one of the best Bond films in decades, he is ably supported by Eva Green who plays Vesper and Mads Mikkelsen who plays Le Chiffre. I wouldn't normally comment on opening credits but Bond is different; gone are the scantily clad ladies in silhouette being replaced by stylised men in dinner jackets and images of cards and roulette wheels, accompanied by a good song I liked the new style. While I was disappointed by the next film in the series this shows that Craig has what it takes to play Bond and I'm sure his later outings in the role will be worth watching.

Vodka Martini-Shaken or stirred? I don't care a damn! Why not? The Chase&Action Sequnce on the crane is just incredible-some of the best I have seen in a Bond Movie. So is the scene on the tarmac of the Airport. But Daniel Craig is too mechanical with no personality. He is tall and looks good in a tux-so does a penguin. There is no Villain with a bad Russian accent(Bond-do you expect me to talk? No,I expecthh you tto diiie Missta Bond,) or a bald guy in Nehru jacket in a swing chair smothering kittens (I am expecting you Mr. Bond,Would you like drowning lessons in my shark tank Mr. Bond?) or a Giant with bad teeth and an IQ of a teenage mutant ninja turtle, walking out of smoldering ruins. One more thing, when I am betting Ten Mil. on a game of Poker,I don't want a bearded guy flirting with my girl, talk hush hush within ten feet of me-I would have him thrown off the table and do away with him, sooner than this happens in the movie.The music is not the thrillingly haunting, 007 Bond music-except over the titles. This alone puts a damper on the proceedings. The location photography is good. This Bond gets tortured more than any Bond. Is this torture legal? for a Bond Movie? Then again why are we seeing Bond in a wheel chair? even if he is seen in posh locale? Now what kind of impression does this give to future Bonds?

Casino Royale is a a new take on the 007 series. Here we see Bond for the very first time, and Daniel Craig does such a fantastic job. Craig plays Bond just as he acquires he 007 status, this is the first story of Bond - Bond is a novice. Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond was a very raw character who doesn't fit the 007 mould and still has to find his feet, his place, his confidence. Usually Bond's portrayal is more rugged though suave, not raw.

I will have to repeat myself over and over until I bore you, about my love for Daniel Craig's performance in this movie. Craig as James Bond is one of the most amazing performances I have seen of 2006 and 2007 put together in Hollywood. Never before has a Bond been so humane, so understandable, so dashing. Craig not only has incredibly gorgeous good looks, but he can act superbly and I cannot stress more how much he fits the character of James Bond! This is undoubtedly his best performance and I sincerely hope he will remain as Bond for a long time and produce more great 007 movies. I LOVE him in this movie...:)

The stunts in Casino Royale are another impressive feature. Riveting and thrilling, Casino Royale will glue you to your seat, eagerly waiting for more. Thankfully it doesn't disappoint and gives the audience fantastic scenes throughout. Casino Royale starts and finishes on a good note. A very memorable scene to me personally is the naked, pain-stricken James receiving punishment from Le Chiffre.

Vesper Lynd, the new Bond girl, played by Eva Green was also a commendable performance. She is very different compared to any other "Bond Girl". Vesper Lynd is an equal to Bond, they have the same sense of humour, the same style, the same way of thinking. After all that, they even have a great chemistry! Vesper is beauty and brains. Craig and Green have a connection on screen, they seem to gel very well and all their scenes together are memorable and great to watch. My favourite scene of them together would be their first meeting in the train, exchanging sarcastic remarks and witty jokes to each other. Eva Green truly is a Bond girl, and a remarkable one at that. She became Vesper Lynd, and had some of the best lines in the whole film.

Judi Dench as the irritable M was, as always, fantastic. She is one of the only actresses of her age group that I enjoy watching apart from Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren. She is immortalised as M. Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre was also a great performer, the cold eyes, the bone-chilling smile, the greasy hair; he does it all and in my opinion is one of the best villains of the decade. Caterina Murino as Solange was also decent enough.

What I like best about this film is that James Bond is a very humane character, he has feelings, he fell in love for crying out loud, and he was even willing to give up his job for his love. He is not a agent with a heart of stone, he is a young man finding himself and maturing with time. As the movie progresses, the story gets more serious and the thrilling meter grows higher and higher. The tension I felt before the Poker game was indescribable.

One more very interesting point in this movie is how James Bond was so different from every other Bond movie. He was immature, not fully ready for what he was taking on (of course he acquires it all as time goes on). For example, when Bond was asked whether he likes his martini shaken or stirred, he said "Does it looks like I give a damn". And honestly, NO Bond worth his pedigree would say that, because Bond ALWAYS likes his martini shaken, not stirred, in every movie of his. This showed Bond had a lot of growing up to do, before becoming what he is - a fantastic secret agent.

To sum it up, Casino Royale provides star-studded performances, TERRIFIC stunts that will clench your fists, a story that will stir your soul, and a Bond that you will never forget. This is a masterpiece.

The name's Bond. James Bond.

Reboot, Re-Imagining, Remake, whatever you want to call it, it was pretty clear that the James Bond franchise had reached a crossroads of late and when Casino Royale was announced it seemed in to be a great opportunity and great risk. The Brosnan era, which had started with such great promise in the gritty action of Goldeneye, had ended in the realm of self-parody and farce with the cartoon antics of Die Another Day. Props like the truly idiotic invisible car conjured up images of the worse excesses of the Roger Moore era, in a way it was Brosnans Moonraker, a movie bereft of any real originality or spark. Royale's makers promised a Bond for the 21st century, realistic, cold, and believable. In theory this seemed to be what the franchise needed until you remember the last time this approach was tried in the ill received Dalton Bond's of The Living Daylights and License to Kill. While this reviewer enjoyed the Dalton entries to the series, it was clear from the box office performances that the rest of the general public were generally cold to the idea of a real-life style Bond. Cartoon Bond had run its course but the diametric opposite wasn't welcome either. But time is a great changer of opinion so the question that has to be asked, is the general moviegoer ready for a new style of Bond? And does Casino Royale and the rugged unconventional face of the new Bond Daniel Craig deliver the goods? The answers to both questions are resoundingly yes and it is quite possibly one of the best Bonds ever committed to the screen.

From the opening scenes this Bond sets out its stall as we witness Craig's Bond earn his 007 stripes in brutally cold kills in a public bathroom and office, the black and white camera-work bleeding out any piece of unrealistic air. This is a Bond devoid of novelty Gadgets, cheap quips and one who pointedly doesn't give a damn if his Martini is shaken or stirred. Leading on from the Chris Cornell penned theme song and conceptual title sequence the film flies straight into action, as Bond gets busy flexing his muscles in a breathtaking chase sequence. It's raw and exhilarating to watch and sets up the pace for the rest of the movie. Bond is a raw rookie who shows a reckless nature that serves to infuriate Judy Dench's M, who sees him as a cold killer with a lack of discretion. Craig plays the cold detachment perfectly. He's committed to his job and is very good at it but it is only out of not knowing what else to do. As he says himself "I wouldn't know what an honest job is".

The locations are suitable varied and interesting ranging from the soft beaches of The Bahamas to the bustle of Miami and on to the picturesque settings of Montenegro. Miami's scenes include the airport action sequence spied in the trailer which although slightly redundant to the main plot still show off Craig's physical acting chops and acts as a highly entertaining interlude to the main plot of Bond tracking down La Chiffre, a known funder of international terrorists. It must be said that in the pantheon of Bond villains Chiffre isn't the most menacing. I mean how much of an impact can a man who bleeds out of a dead eye have but he does serve his purpose as Bonds opponent with functional efficiency and his cold manner helps add tension to the immensely enjoyable poker scenes.

It's in these scenes that Bonds character is fleshed out in a manner not seen since License to Kill. The interplay between Bond and Eva Green's Vesper Lynds crackle's with energy. The writing of Paul Haggis is clearly in play in many of these scenes as there is a clear smoothness to the dialogue not normally seen in a Bond movie. Bond shows himself to be a slightly bitter man who never lets anybody in and it's a real pleasure to watch Green's Lynd crack his cold exterior.

For fans of the original novel the torture scene also deserves a mention. If you haven't read the book then think of something like the Syriana style of torture only with a different body part in danger and you'll be close. It's easily one of the most brutal scenes you are ever likely to see in a Bond movie and will have many members of the audience wincing in pain.

By the time of the tragic climax it's pretty clear this Bond has rescued the franchise from its dull torpor and then some. Everything in this movie works and this reviewer is still stunned at how good it is. Craig leaves the trademark line to the last scene and when it's finally delivered you're left wanting more. From this evidence Bonds next installment can't come soon enough.

One of the best movies of the year? Oh Yes.

5/5.

Review posted by Gulli on boxofficefanatic.com

Casino Royale goes back to the beginning, with Daniel Craig playing a rougher and more brusque Bond at the start of his career As for the story, Eon Productions won the rights in 1999 after Sony Pictures Entertainment exchanged them for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's rights to Spider-Man.

How odd that 40 years into Bond, it is he - and not a woman - rising nearly nude from the sea? I still think of Craig as the new Bond, despite him owning the role for nearly 14 years.

In this film, we meet the new Bond, watch as he gains 00 status and then falls for - and loses - Vesper Lynn (Eva Green) as he is on the trail of Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a banker to the world's terrorists.

Bond even goes as far to quit MI6 over love in this movie and pays the price. At the end, he finally says his catchphrase, "The name's Bond. James Bond," before coldly dispatching of a villain.

Between the parkour scene and the emphasis on violence over gadgetry, this was a new Bond that was more Jason Bourne than Roger Moore. For a fanbase that was violently opposed to Craig as their hero, things have settled down over time.

This is the first time that the theme of a Bond movie - Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name" - didn't appear on the soundtrack. It's also the only Bond film other than Live and Let Die where Q doesn't appear.

This film is terrible. The plot barely makes sense, Daniel Craig pouts far more than any human (let alone man) should, there's no good action scenes, the best sequence of the movie looks like an extended Volvo ad and the film has a 45 minute poker sequence in the middle that's no better than Celebrity Poker off the TV, except of course when i watch it on TV i don't know who's going to win. This film was a huge let down. It was hard to imagine that I would look back on the Pierce Brosnan days with fond memories but somehow the makers of this latest debacle have achieved it. But worst of all, worse than the wooden dialogue and bizarre attempt at love story, worse than all that was that there was not a single bad guy worth his salt in the whole movie. If the world doesn't have super villains it surely doesn't need super spies either.

this film began with what i consider to be the most insipid, forgettable bond song, and a villain with a SCAR. o no. but this guy weeps blood no less. a variation on a cliché. bond begins by chasing an incredibly fast, dexterous guy for no apparent reason. and of course, there's the crane scene. o no. but then, the film begins to get better. and better. and with the arrival of the exquisite Eva Green, even better. M is great as usual, although, if this was the start of Bond's career, M looks older. beautiful, but older. the poker scenes surprised me a bit but were lacking in suspense. When Bond tells Vesper he loves her, and resigns, we all know then what's in store for her. the question is, how does she die? it was a touching moment seeing Bond in love, almost leaving it all, and the sacrifices made all around. but, besides getting her out of that sinking cage, he didn't seem to try very hard to revive her (think, THE ABYSS). i would have kept trying. i can say this: Daniel Craig has a great body; Eva Green is as beautiful as ever; Judy Dench is a wonderful M; it's great seeing Giancarlo Giannini again, although his role in the film just didn't ring true; Le Chiffre is worse than creepy.... the most touching moments come at the end, when we discover the extent of Vesper Lynd's predicament and the sacrifices she made. and oddly enough, it set a ground work for why Bond so often loves them and leaves them.... This Bond had a great ensemble cast, some great action sequences, and a vaguely bland screen play. but i'd watch it again. after all, it IS Bond....James Bond....and Daniel Craig? this Bond, can ACT and act well. This wont necessarily make him my favorite Bond, but he is very very good here.

I am not the biggest James Bond fan, but I have quite enjoyed the franchise. Until now. There are so many things in this film that do not make sense that I don't know where to begin.

First of all I am convinced that Daniel Craig had a hangover one day (one of many judging by his face) and was offered a role in the movie called Casino Royale about which he most certainly thought that it is a sequel to his well made Layer Cake, for which he would be perfect. A successful cocaine dealer working his way to be England's Mafia elite will suit him much better than the British suave top spy. The phrase: "The men want to be him and the women want to be with him" does not match the criteria. I could not help but laugh seeing him emerging from the water with his egg shaped head, the sticking out trans illuminating ears and the straw organized hair. I definitely did not want to be him. Only thing to redirect the concentration of a movie goer to something else was to put him in the gym for six months prior to the shooting of the movie.

Second of all I went to see this movie with a bit of objectivity, listening to critics saying that it is a very well made action movie. I probably went to see the wrong film. The only exiting action sequence is the free-running chase through the streets in Uganda. It involved the free running champion Sebastien Foucan where Craig's stunt was trying his best not to ruin the scene. Otherwise there are no new ideas no new camera angles and most of the scenes have been in the other movies before. The petrol tank truck chase on the airport runway is like a bad copy from the Raiders of the Lost ark. Harrison did a much better job and it was original.

The sequence where Bond is mistaken for a parking attendant is the only ray of bright witty humor Bond is supposed to have and is missing and again it was used in the movies so many times before. (The latest I remember by Vin Diesel in XXX) The whole scene was badly executed and with no follow up logic. Why would security guys run towards the car to find out what has happened when there are security cameras in the security room which was left open for Bond to use the equipment??? Don't even let me start on the car chase. Sorry, what car chase? Bond goes around a couple of curves and unintentionally (when was the last time Bond unintentionally?) wrecks the car. Yes he is a great actor, just watch his facial expression before the stunt man breaks the world record in "car flipping". Unforgettable.

Editing of the poker games in the casino is just amateurish. Cutting the fight scene in half to add a dialog from different surroundings just for the viewer to find out that "Mr. Bond has changed his shirt" is called home made editing.

Making the movie about the beginnings of James Bond earning his "00" status? You start with a black and white scene which really gives you an impression about the times before it all started. Good. You pick a 38 year old actor who looks "used". Bad. You give him no gadgets. Good. Except latest satellite navigation telephones and a high tech heart defibrillator which is a standard accessory of his latest model Aston Martin (by the way Mrs. Broccoli did you really think that invisible car previously was unrealistic?). Bad. Now you have a top spy so you give him an anti terrorist mission. Good. His task is to recover a mere 150 million. Bad. Can someone add this up for me? In conclusion this film is an average movie without any pace or plot, with no new action no leading actor or actress in that matter, no plot and no meaning at all.

While this is a competently done spy film, it seems more like an installment in the Jason Bourne series rather than a Bond adventure.

The idea of bringing gritty realism to a Bond tale just doesn't make sense. Bond films have always been over-the-top and done with a sense of humor. The character is never too serious, always composed and always one step ahead of everyone else. Bond is a man who can leap from a speeding car, grapple with a couple of thugs and still not get a wrinkle on his tuxedo. It's hard to evaluate Daniel Craig as Bond, because the character he's asked to play exhibits none of the traits we have come to expect. This "new" Bond is tortured by inner demons, doesn't have much to say and consistently lets the bad guys get the better of him. About the only thing that feels "right" here is the high-stakes poker game in a glamorous casino.

The fun and intricate action scenes are gone. Dramatic shootouts on skis in the Swiss Alps have been replaced with bloody fist fights in dark stairwells. Bond bleeds, gets tortured, is uncertain he can finish the mission and is often saved by pure luck. The creative and memorable gadgets are gone as well. The old Bond relied on cleverness, trickery and intelligence to escape situations. The new Bond relies mostly on brute force.

I'm all for updating the Bond series and getting a fresh perspective on things. Admittedly the movies had become a bit stale and predictable. However, this isn't the breath of fresh air that was needed. So much of what made the Bond character great has been abandoned. Everything this movie attempts is done ten times better by the Bourne Identity series.

Imagine if they created a "revised" Superman. He doesn't wear a costume or cape, can't fly, and is from Cleveland, Ohio rather than the planet Krypton. Is that still Superman? Some things just shouldn't be changed when it comes to classic characters.

This latest installment of the Bond series marks yet another new face in the lead role. Bond is portrayed here as a slightly more fallible, less polished hero. I thoroughly enjoyed this take on the 007 character. Similar to what 2005's "Batman Begins" did for that franchise, this does for Ian Fleming's brainchild. We see a Bond who is not refined, often errs in judgement, and begins to learn what it really means to be a spy. The writers took a huge chance with this departure from the traditional Bond role, and in my opinion it was the right move. Rather than have Daniel Craig try to live up to a Sean Connery standard, they take him in a direction that is non competitive, yet compelling on its own merits.

Where Bond films usually awe us with action, this film throws us a change-up. The post-opening sequence is quite spectacular, and would make this an enjoyable Saturday afternoon distraction even without the rest of the film. From here we change course, into a slightly less than compelling tale surrounding a poker tournament.

A big miss in this installment is the product shilling. If you're reading this Hollywood, please knock it off. No seriously, just stop. It's insulting. I did not feel the need to buy a new Ford, a cell phone, a Sony laptop, or book a stay in one of your Vegas casinos to drop my life savings at the poker tables after watching this movie. If anything, I have more understanding of why the kids are unapologetically downloading movies. Your customers are getting sick of forking over cash to watch marketing drivel dressed up in cinema robes.

Despite some of the missed plot devices and story pacing, this movie is worth the rental. I found the tale of a Bond who is learning the ropes, and growing into his role very watchable. Perhaps in the next film we might see Craig put away the brand name items and continue in his evolution toward Bond.

Sorry, to me this wasn't a Bond film. The only thing this film had to do with the Bond series is the name James Bond.

It's not the lack of gadgets or the missing Q...it was just the lack of a certain atmosphere.

While it was an interesting take on Bond, it almost seemed like it was more of a knock-off type spy movie. You could have changed the names of the characters and this film would have tanked.

I never felt comfortable with Craig playing Bond; he seemed too rough around the edges and too human...yes I know, that's realistic but we don't go see Bond films to see realism. And yes, the novels portray a scarred tough Bond but then again Ian Fleming worked with the earlier films to give us the on-screen Bond that we all know.

Bond villains are generally supposed to be tough, in control...the villain here seemed weak and incapable. He was a middle-man; someone hardly worth Bond's time or at least worth an entire film if you know what I mean.

Overall, it was slightly entertaining; get it on netflix or something to pass a few hours...but this isn't a Bond film I'd watch again as I do other Bond films. As the film really seemed to drag in some parts, especially during the casino scenes.

This is not the right direction for Bond films...sorry, it just misses the mark.

I came into this dubious about Daniel Craig as Bond. Although trying to view it objectively he still doesn't fit for me.

From the opening titles which are a total break with tradition this had problems feeling like a Bond film.

Admittedly there was some interesting use of technology, but not enough advanced for what we have as consumers now.

The film: Originally the game was Baccarat, but the film makers chose to change this to Hold 'Em Poker, simply because they believed viewers wouldn't understand Baccarat. What is wrong with putting a breakdown of the rules on the film website and/or on the DVD as one of the extras? Secondly the time-line is completely fouled up. This is SUPPOSED to be prior to James' getting his 00 status, and then his first mission following on from that. His *first* mission is supposed to be BEFORE the others if my logic is correct? So why is it set in current time? M mentioning the crash on 12/9, all the brand new gadgets of course, oh and she mentioned the end of the Cold War.

This is supposed to be the *60s* when the Cold War was very much still on. I would have liked to see a lot more authenticity, even if the gadgetry looked dated.

A great film marred by too much messing about hence only a 6 - and it was lucky to get that.

The movie starts with such a bang which doesn't let up then its straight into the famous card game (now changed to Texas hold for the up to date audience), But unfortunately as soon as The love interest gets kidnapped and you get past the torture scene (OUCH!). It becomes a horrible little love story with a crap ending tacked on....an ending that could have happened at three other points in the movie.

Don't get me wrong Craig is brilliant in the role but its like they switched writers half way through and ran out of money the second half of the movie is just utter crap. As far as the Bad guy is concerned he starts off being this ruthless bad guy seems really evil...right up until he takes a whiff of his inhaler during the poker game and he becomes a wheezing whining cry baby who is not even finished off by bond but some small part character while bond stares on with his swollen man parts hanging out.

If you really want to see it wait till DVD then rent it believe me you ain't missing much on the big screen. As far as all the hype about the New Bond movie is concerned , The was this amount of hype around Goldeneye and now when people look at it the movie looks very dated and im sure this will be the same for Casino.

Hi folks,

If there was a lower score than 1, I would have Gladly picked that. What a WASTE of my money. This movie has passed beyond awful.

I thought after being totally disappointed in "Die Another Day" Bond movie ... since they casted the Un-talented Halle Berry as Jinx and making her part of Bond Girl history ... was bad enough ... but I guess the Producers, Casting Agents, and Directors are either sleeping at the helm or they figured ... all they have to do slap "007" in front a movie and whole bunch of idiots will rush to the movies and pay good money ... well, from the "Positive" reviews I have read here I guess they have assumed correctly ... because all of us rushed to the movies to see the Latest BOND Movie.

1) Daniel Craig ... he is the WORST Bond ever casted ... the guy DOES NOT look anything close to a Bond. He looks like a phony 007. He over-played his roles ... what is the deal with the guy and his bottom lip ... keep biting it or something to give him the "Sophisticated" Bond look ... GOD, PLEASE ... let this be his LAST FILM as BOND ... he SUCKS!

2) This Bond movie stinked as a whole ... there was hardly any suspense like the good old Bond movies used to have ... also where the heck were the usual Bond Gadgetry ... just a Stupid Tray popping out so he can use the needle to revive him ... what gives!?!?!? , in the old times with less technology Bond had more State-of-the-Art stuff ...

3) I am getting TIRED of "Judi Dench" as "M" ... this woman looks and sounds less and less realistic as the "M" ... OK, OK, so it sounds great with the Women Libs and all the other politically correct B.S. ... but when is Hollywood going to stop making Movies and Theatre as their Pulpit for getting their agenda thru ... please use other Crappy movies to do it with and LEAVE BOND movies alone ... for God's sake. ALSO, To director of this movie ... how Sexy is it to start the movie by zooming in some Old Bra's wrinkly and sagging Breasts ... meaning "M" ... Judi Dench ... who wanted to get a glimpse of her cleavage ... SICKENING .. I almost tossed my burrito on the head of the gal sitting in front of me in the Theatre.

I guess I better stop now ... since I am running out of time.

Bottom of the Line ...

A) Daniel Craig Got to Go! B) New "M" .. please. C) More suspense and Gadgetry for the next Bond.

THANKS!

From the timid and most unexciting "starter story" (the worst I have seen in any Bond) to the tedious and unexciting storyline - this was the worst Bond ever filmed. Even the animated main title sequence is the worst of any Bond film. One wishes Maurice Binder back from the grave - he could have done a much, much better job.

The opening scene has been stolen and re-filmed from the movie "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" - the same plot, the same roles filmed in the same locale. Did nobody notice that? The only difference is that the James Bond version was filmed in black and white - how nouveau!

Casino Royale should have been sharper edited. Many times I nearly feel asleep and caught myself looking at the watch during the long, unedited and tedious dialogs scenes between James Bond and his "girls". These conversations were pointless and did not go anywhere. The "villain" was no really a "villain" - in fact he was the dumbest, boring and lamest "villain" in film history. A villain should be portrayed as such to make the audience dislike him - in this Bond film, the audience did not give a dam if the villain lives or dies.

In fact, all the characters of Casino Royale were not sufficiently portrayed for the audience to care for them. For example: the unattractive "blond" help of the bad guy who poisoned James Bond appeared out of nowhere and disappeared into nowhere - who cared ? She looked like a lifted, vulgar and out of place Eastern European prostitute - which villain in any Bond movie ever had such poor taste?

Talk about the ending of the movie: one felt reminded on a "cliffhanger". The bad guy was introduced towards the end and no one cared about him anyway - in fact, it was not clear for the majority of the audience if he was the bad guy after all. I think the only person who could follow that thin storyline was the trainee who thought that he wrote a good script.

In general, the movie is a waste of time, energy and resources. I am a huge Bond fan and have all the movies - Casino Royal has been a huge disappointment.

Oh my God, Twilight is such Evil Fluff, while men have Serious Art. How do you know Casino Royale is Serious Art? Because it is painstakingly Gloomy, Sulking and Cynic, disastrous attempt to make men's own Superficial Series as Serious Art. Result is one of the worst Bond films ever, perhaps THE worst one. Daniel Craig as J Bond, always a sexist with brain between legs and without sissy things like moral compass, is now totally sociopathic and he and plastic Eva Green as tragically tortured heroine have less chemistry than me and my laptop. Story is boring dross with dollop of sadism and token not-too-happy ending. There's no style or entertainment value.

Let me try an analogy: you go to MacDonald and they have no burgers, they serve no fries, no Coke, they have no mustard or ketchup. In fact they only serve Vegan food, they are dressed in black and green uniforms and the sign in front of the building is a monkey!!! But they are very proud of their MacDonald store!!! Have the producers lost the plot? Do they and the many commentators on this site understand the notion of a "brand" or the "recipe" of a Bond movie? So many commentators here are making "intellectual" commentaries praising this movie and I would agree with quite a few of them IF this would be a generic action movie, but this is supposed to be a Bond movie. How can so many people miss this point? How about a remake of Romeo and Juliet without Romeo and Juliet, without any love story and I'll name the movie Seinfeld? Maybe it would be a good movie, but not a Romeo and Juliet!!!! How about the totally politically correct, perfectly in tune with the UK policy these days, tone of the movie? They started a few movies ago when they appointed a woman for the role of M and now James Bond doesn't flirt with women any more, he is not witty any more, he refuses random sex, he falls in love with the most banal woman in town, he cries like a girl, he crashes his Aston Martin like a beginner in about 30 seconds without being chased by anyone and he runs out of money???? James Bond broke? And people still insist that this movie is a Bond movie? What is this, mass brain washing? James Bond is a chauvinistic, flirtatious, macho, heterosexual man, a modern Don Juan combined with a modern D'Artagnan, with a great love for beautiful women (not blah women), for the best cars, for the best gadgets, that travels the world in the most exotic destinations without concern for money, he's always dressed top notch, he likes the best things in life, best cigars, best drinks, he's extremely quick and witty and flirtatious in his conversations etc. That is the James Bond that I and many like myself would love to see again and unfortunately, Daniel Craig is not him. Although a nice guy and an accomplished actor, he is not James Bond, he's just too rough. Hugh Laurie would be a better Bond, Hugh Grant would be a better Bond and Clive Owen would probably be the best Bond of all times if only Barbara Brocolli would stop messing around and make great BOND movies again.

I just watched this movie again, this time with my 14 year old son who is a James Bond nut, he likes them better than I do. He was lost, he could not understand how it could be modern day and Bond just got to be a 00. I told him this was supposed to be like the very first book, but then he read the book and said that the time is wrong, the date he meant, it is supposed to be 1958 or 57 and that for it to be the start it should have a male "M" a completely different game to play and there are no such things as computers like that in 1957, he stopped watching about half way through and told me the new die hard film was better, went to film collection we have and got "Thunderball", put it in and said, now here is a real James Bond movie. I have to say that film has action, but as far as a "Official James Bond film from EON" I would have to say the 1967 unofficial David Niven and Peter Sellers film was much better. Sorry Cubby Broccoli, they ruined your franchise. I guess that we might have to wait another ten years for a good Bond film again. And to see that the new film, Bond 22, is going to be just another action flick like this one tells me that there are no real Bond fans anymore. Too bad.

Overall, I thought this was a disappointing film that didn't live up to the hype. The plot was thin and unoriginal, with a lot of gaps. What was all the bombing, crashing, jumping around like monkeys and shooting about - and right from the start of the film? The bearded guy is a friend and then suddenly he is not. Who was the American and what exactly was his connection to the plot line? Who was the man who was shot by Bond at the beginning of the film? What was the background of the outfit run by the man with the bleeding eye? None of this was properly explained.

By far the worst thing in the film was the anorexic woman who played Bond's love interest - she is a terrible actress. And apart from her skeletal and unattractive appearance in general, in one scene she is portrayed as completely flat-chested (wearing a purple dress), and in another as buxom (wearing a black dress). I know cinema is largely about illusion, but does this fact have to be quite so obvious?

Bond himself was not the best Bond by any means - although he was not terrible, I thought he was not particularly convincing or charismatic enough. He was not cool and suave like Bond should be (and always has been before), but some wimpish creature who occasionally suddenly and violently shoots someone, often seemingly without provocation. The actor is not bad - he is just miscast in this particular role.

The best things about the film were the locations, which were beautifully shot. The effects were also well done, but at the expense of the plot. The locations in particular helped cover up the bad plot line.

I cannot believe that 'critics' gave this film such high praise - just goes to show you can't rely on the opinions of people who seem to pander to taste and are seduced by hype.

Magnificent how they made us believe this one was worth watching. Yet it's barely interesting. The biggest mistake made was the modern day setting. It is supposed to be a prequel! ***SPOILERS AHEAD*** In the fifties, when Fleming wrote this one, I could have been forgiving towards the absence of gadgets and loose women (No female theme song either). But then again, how would they be able to sell their nowadays Fords and Sony's? It's a real challenge to create an interesting movie, based on a 50 year old book. This shows. For instance, James and Vesper show off their I.Q. during their first encounter in a train, by knowing details about each others upbringing at first glance. But later on, James falls for the simplest poker trick in the book. Also, their stereotype male and female character are old-fashioned; not 2006. And the storyline is quite predictable. Some scenes are way to long, and some crucial ones are way to short. Vesper sized him up for the tux? Good enough for S,M,L,XL and XXL, not for tailor-made. I'll bet she used the Sony Vaio to check the MI6-site. What about the reanimation scene after the drowning? Obvious they used a real stiff. No water sprouting out, or any movement of her chest at all, when he tried to restart her circulation and giving her mouth to mouth. (He didn't even try; it might take up to 30 minutes, not seconds...) Today we know how Indiana Jones got his whip, and where his scar comes from. We should have learned why James likes his drink "stirred, not shaken" in this movie. But I guess the latter is nitpicking, it just should have played in the late 50's. (and with a storyline written before and not while filming.) It's still entertaining enough to get it on a budget DVD next year, but not better than my English....

This is the worst 007 series movies to me. I can't comment without spoiler included, because the story was too simple to tell! The title of the movie is all this movie is about. Unlike other tens of 007 movies, Casino lacks complex story and vivid characters. The story development is dull and no ground based. Long and violent scenes were seemed as inserted to make the movie long enough to sell, not very necessary need. The love scene also is unnecessarily composed, unlike all other counterparts.

First of all, the story: the story was 007 trace a bunch of bad guys, and like the poor 6th season of "24", all his leads were based on pure luck. If our success are based on luck, it would be a pity to the safety of us.

Second, the story: the climax of this movie was like a poorly made HK movie that several guys sit inside a casino and everybody is holding a flush. I mean, there is no suspicious in the story telling as we all know 007 must win.

Oh, had I talked about the cell phones? It seems without it, 007 can't get anywhere. So many times the cell phone becomes the only lead. In old days, people just burn the secret written on paper, nowadays people are stupid enough to leave all passwords and account on. Don't they just turn it off? Don't they know the word "single direction communication"? I've heard the case people will use SIM card just once and flush away in real life drama.

Sweet film. Awesome cars and babe combo. Fun watching. Climax is convincing and of course the girl has a man but still ends up in bed with Bond.

As a Bond movie CR fails miserably. It has nothing that a Bond movie should have. It's SLOW, BORING, WITLESS, STORYLESS and utterly unconvincing from a character standpoint.

At no point in the movie do we ever care about any character. At no point in the movie do we feel ANY villain is really an evil "rule the world" or "pull off the biggest heist ever" type of baddie. At no point is ANYTHING sexy. At no point is Bond ever suave, sophisticated, cool, smooth, carefree or even likable.

If the whole movie was supposed to lead up to him saying the Bond James Bond line at the end, I want my two hours back.

(spoilers) There's zero, nada, none and no chemistry at all between the 'lovers' and its beyond obvious that she is scamming him from the get go. Its excruciatingly dull to watch the "game" both at the poker table and between bond and 'the girl' because we all know where its going and its not fun.

The movie was so tedious im surprised it survived to screen and wasn't renamed and given an alternate ending so it didn't horribly stain the Bond genre. The only thing slower than the movie was the amount of time it took the venice building to sink scene, Bond to rescue the girl we know is gonna drown scene and for bond to figure out he was being conned the whole time... yeesh!

Once again: No evil bad guys, no cool henchmen, no hot chicks, no great chases, no crazy gadgets and no James Bond.

There have been some bad Bond movies in the past, but they were bad only because they didn't live up to the standards set by better Bond movies before them. This movie is just BAD and an embarrassment to every Bond movie before it.

Like others have said before. If you're hoping for any kind of Bond movie at all, watch one that was made before this one - because despite the title and the lead characters name. James Bond does not appear in this film...

ps. the actors don't do a 1/2 bad job with what they were given - but what they were given to work with is NFG. Unless you're hot to see Dan naked and getting his family jewels smashed - skip this mess.

I really liked this film. It was more down to earth and showed more essence of the Bond franchise.

What I didn't like is that it was so much about poker - I don't understand the game but it was fun to watch anyway. Montenegro was a bit too clean cut for me, it was obvious that they substituted another country for it. The bit with the chief of the police in Montenegro was also confusing.

The bond girl has a lot more substance this time, she's purer, smarter, and has a history of her own. This made her a more interesting character to follow. Overall, I appreciated the effort the screenwriters put into character development (for everyone, not just Bond), instead of developing the gadgets. This Bond film is grittier, but also more realistic. Because it bring the issues closer to the everyday level, it also leaves a more lasting impression than other Bond films with their impossible technology and blow-up dolls. The audience in my auditorium was 30+ and it was obvious they enjoyed a more subtle approach.

A note about the new Bond actor: he's a better Bond in action than on a poster. I found that he didn't really come across as "Bond" in the photos for the film, but in action, he's Bond 110%.

This movie is the cinematic equivalent of an incorrectly-assembled jigsaw puzzle. Just a total mess no matter where you look. Watching this felt like watching 5 movies at once and only catching one-fifth of each one. There's just an incredible amount of underdeveloped characters and subplots.

Why chase the unbelievably athletic black dude bomb maker guy in the beginning? It didn't seem to be connected in any way to the guy with the crazy eye except perhaps in the most minor, circumstantial way possible...not to mention the sequence went on for about 10 minutes and ended with Bond killing the guy outright after we are informed that he needs to remain alive.

And the whole thing about blowing up the plane...why? Who was that guy? I have absolutely no idea. Didn't even catch his name. They gave us NO INFORMATION about him. The whole tanker-chase was just absolutely ridiculous and seemed more at home in a cartoon, and before you know it, the unknown guy is dead. Not to mention the entire sequence was pointless. Bad guy needs money, which is the reason for trying to blow up the plane. Afterwards, Bad guy still needs money. You can remove that entire segment and nothing has changed. It's redundant.

There's at least a dozen characters that we essentially know nothing about who suddenly die and that's supposed to mean something. Who are they? Who's side are they on? Do they even have names? They could have saved the salary budget and just got a few cardboard boxes with painted faces on them instead. I know it's a Bond movie, but for Christ's sake.

The guy with the weird eye was quite a bland villain. It's mentioned that he's some math genius and that makes him good at card games, but why is that talent never actually shown in the movie? He just turns cards like everyone else. I know it would be a little difficult to show the inner workings of his mind, but it's better than a throwaway line. So if being good at math makes him so great at cards, what makes Bond so good? And if Bond doesn't need a reason, why does the eye guy? And why is Bond even there instead of a professional card player if they need this guy to lose so badly? And speaking of this card game, why did the villain, despite his many connections to the underworld and corrupt dictatorships, decides his only way to recoup his losses is by holding a high stakes poker game with a CIA agent as well as a British Secret Agent? And couldn't they just abduct him and hold him in a secret location until his enemies were hot for his blood, then threaten to release him if he didn't flip? It seems much more logical than the card game method, which would still require abducting the bad guy and threatening to release him if he didn't flip.

Despite the repeated need for the villain to win all the money brought to the game, the villain, the alleged super genius, decides to poison Bond while Bond has 50 million sitting on the table which means that money would not have been won by the villain had he succeeded in killing Bond.

After the villain's defeat he was supposed to be grabbed by CIA but apparently the boys from Langley are more incompetent than the guerrilla soldiers from Uganda because they didn't even get near the bad guy and let him abduct members of the British Secret Service and flee the country.

And what was up with that tracking device they put in his arm. Talk about a setup with no payoff. What a waste of time that was.

From here on in we get a lot of contrived and pointless melodrama as the film refuses to stop and continues to slog through Bond's tragic romance with a woman who is so in love with her boyfriend that she decides to steal ten million dollars from the government (that's all that belonged tot eh British government, which ain't that much) and she also bangs the hell out of Bond for good measure - because she is so in love with her abducted boyfriend.

To top off the insanity, we get a crazy chase through Venice to hunt down some one-eyed villain we have never seen before that has nothing to do with anything, as far as we know. Then just when things couldn't get more ridiculous, the love interest decides to kill herself by locking herself int the elevator of a sinking house. Why did she do that? I guess because it was supposed to be tragic and sad - it was just stupid.

Another thing that bothered me was the fact that Bond got help with nearly everything he did. He got helped out of the whipping chair, he got help with the defibrillator, he got help disarming an enemy, he got help disposing of the bodies, he got help tasering that other dude, etc. Most of the stuff was completely done by other people, and it made for a rather passive "hero".

It seems as though every review ever written for this film (besides this one) compares the movie to other, lesser-quality Bond movies and praises it for sucking less than those. But if you actually look at this movie in and of itself, it's terrible in every way.

And on a side note, Eva Green looks infinitely more attractive without excessive layers of makeup gunked all over her face.

I was not one of the Bond fans who went into the movie with a poor attitude just because they switched actors. I was reserving judgment on Craig and actually had high hopes for the film. It started off pretty well and I was into it but by the second half I couldn't wait to get out of the theater; the plot just became really screwed up (Who the hell is Mr. White working for and what were his stakes?) and the girl became a bitch. In the end, it never really felt like a Bond movie. I know they were trying to reinvent him, but they should have taken out the bad and left the good instead of the opposite. Bond just isn't as slick as he used to be (except when he put the bomb on that guy, causing him to blow himself up). Also, where is the old Bond music? This new stuff is not noticeable and doesn't add anything to the movie. It wasn't Craig's performance that killed the movie, but a lack familiarity which we can always associate with James Bond.

In some respects this was a James Bond movie, but it's not fun anymore. The movie is overly violent and has a tragic end that could of easily been avoided. James Bond saves the world but who is going to save James Bond from the meanies producing his movies. The James Bond they have is no Pierce Bronson and is better suited to being a bad guy I think. The chase scenes at the beginning is good but too long. Bring back the bouncy girl credits. Now we know what a double o means. Ian Fleming's favorite movie was the original Casino Royale which I much prefer to this version. This reminds me of what they did with Superman when they reinvented him in the early 90's. They killed him off and brought him back from the dead stronger than ever. Then they killed two kids in the comic book and I stopped reading it. The people producing James Bond movies better be careful that they don t lose the popular culture ties they have by putting bad endings on his movies, if it s not too late already.

Casino Royale opened in my country on Dec 1st. I've been waiting for this movie with so much anticipation. The last movie i was this excited about was Peter Jacksons Lord of the Rings: RoTK back in 2003! Here are my impressions: First off, i was convinced from the start that Daniel Craig would be a great Bond. i don't know why i had faith in the guy. Everyone else certainly didn't, and its not like i'd seen anything else he had done before. I suppose its the 'loving the underdog' part to my personality, but anyway, i liked the look of him, and if what the makers were saying was true, then we needed a new Bond to usher in a new era for the franchise. And boy, does DC deliver!! The premise of Casino Royale is a clever one. Its the first book by Ian Fleming, and with the introduction of a new James, it was a really clever idea from the film makers. They use the back story of Bond as a backdrop to presenting DC, the more beefed up, blonde super agent. The story revolves around exposing La Chiffe (King Arthurs' Triston, Mads Mickelson) as a terrorist funder, and so Bond gets sent to Montenegro to play La Chiffe in a poker game. Introduce, 2006 Bond girl (technically the FIRST ever bond girl), Vesper Lynd (portrayed by the wildly beautiful Eva Green, who played Sybilla in Kingdom of Heaven) who provides the cash stakes James uses to buy into the game. I have to say, i loved the writers' job here. This story revolves not only around how Bond becomes a 007, but also why he's the seducer of many but lover of none after Vesper. The backbone of this story is about love. Bond falls in love, and its the betrayal of that trust which gives rise to the James we all know.

The opening Black and White sequence is great! You get into the story by getting a glimpse at how Bond achieved his infamous "licence to kill". Immediately we jump into a breathtaking action sequence.. letting us know right off the bat, this DC was no ordinary Bond, and like nothing we have seen in the last couple of Brosnan outings. Here was a physical, rugged, sweaty male lead who bled and hurt just like the rest of us. I really liked that he wasn't perfect, and in many ways, was just a trainee who still made a heck of a lot of bad judgment calls. He's driven by his ego and need to succeed, and that is a weakness both 'M' (D. Judi Dench) knows about, and Vesper exposes. Bringing me back to DC. The man's body is something to behold. Its easy to see how hard he must have worked out in order to look that good. The stunts were real and believable and its one thrill after the next.

The story is paced well, moving from action to drama and back to action again. The scenes between DC and EG are wonderfully done. Vesper is not your typical bond girl. Here is a woman with a story of her own, and has more than enough self restraint, and respect for herself, to not be another notch on Bonds bedpost. The movie is also littered with great visual scenes between the two, where no words are needed in order to communicate the complexity of the characters and the emotional upheavals. The "shower scene" pops to mind here, the scene where James fights to free Vesper from her cage and finally where he embraces her dead body. No dialog, just raw emotion. For any bond, thats a really unique challenge. The writers wrote about a human, not just the secret agent. Great lines run abundant as well. The witty banter between James and Vesper, the sarcasm apparent with La Chiffe and the comical run-ins with M.

My only regret is that Vesper's reasons for betraying James is nothing but a voice-over / phone call from M. We learn she was being blackmailed to save a former lover (whom we never meet or know whether he is still alive), despite the fact that she has let go of him because of her love for James. Its a great testament to James's feelings when he utters, "The b*tch is dead". M manages to let him know Vesper saved his life in the end.. but its too late.

Born is Bond, James Bond. *goosebump moment*

DC is in my opinion the best choice they could have made. Brosnan was good, but this is a new era for the super agent, and i am left with no doubts that DC will bring a new life to the character.

What an excellent movie. 8.5/10

As I said not bad but like every James Bond movie it has too many unbelievable bits in it like the chase scene just after the opening credits when Bond is chasing the man and they jump off a crane, now come on at least a broken leg from that!

If you watch the scene where Bond and the Assassin are fighting in the car at the airport and they are heading straight for the big special plane whilst going about 50mph it takes them about five minuets to get there and in that time Bond manages to free himself from the bad guy get hold of the steering wheel and stop the car!

This isn't an unbelievable bit but what I find a let down is that Bond is too rough and hardly ever uses a gun. So if you compare the climax of The Spy Who Loved Me Bond uses a gun but a fight scene from Casino Royale, well he uses his fists.

I Have To Begin And Say That The Movie Is Fair Entertainment, And Although Many Doubted Craigs Skills Before Entering The Role, I Had Confidence That He Will Perform Well Cause Frankly I Just Didn't Like Brosnan As Bond! Brosnan Reminds Me Of A Sleeky Salesman And Not Of A Secret Agent. But After Watching The Movie I Have To Say That, I Was Rather Disappointed With Craig, He Just Doesn't Have What It Takes To Be Bond, He Is To Crude, To Tough, A Person That Prefers Brawns Over Brains. A Character Without Charm, Sense Of Houmour Things That Were Natural With Connery,Moore Etc Just Like Dalton I Have A Feeling That Craig Wont Make It To The Third Movie, Although Frankly Speaking I Think That Dalton Was A Fine Bond. About The Movie Itself, What Disappointed Me The Most Was That I Got A Feeling That The Producers Did Their Best To Save Money On It!! Or On The Other Hand Weren't Wise And Spent It All In A Wrong Way. They Wanted Minimum Investment Maximum Profit. To Explain Myself: In The Movie Itself There Are No Gadgets At All!! No Unusual Spectacular Innovations We Are So Used To From All Bond Movies, Instead There Is Lots Of Lets Call It, Street Fighting, Bond Just Beats Up And Gets Beaten Up To Many Times During The Movie, On Cranes, Inside A Hotel, At A Falling Apart Building In Venice, No Brains Are Used By Bond To Get Out Of The Tough Situations He Encouters But Mostly Violence. Another Thing Most Of Secnes Or Should I Say Chases Are Rather Lame, For Example The Chase With The Special Aston Martin DBS Which Was Made Specially By Aston Martin Is Really Short And Useless, The Car Crashes In Less Than 20 Seconds, Again You End Up With A Feeling That Someone Was Short Of Imagination Or Short Of Money. The Chase At The International Airport Of Miami Is More Exciting But Again Not Something You Would Expect From A Bond Movie, And It Is Something You'll Have Seen A Million Times In Action Movies. There Is Another Big Problem With The Movie Was: Commercials In The Movie, Just One Example Out Of Many They Show Various Types Of Cel Phones During The Movie, Every Few Minutes!! And Whats Horrible Is The Crazy Amount Of The Sms Messages That Beeped Through The Movie Between The Actors, Rather Disgusting Honestly. The Movies Name Is Casino Royale But That Doesn't Mean That The Director And The Editors Have To Show Us A Bunch Of People Sitting On A Table Playing Poker In A Total Unrealistic Way, Which By The Way Makes It Boring To Watch, In All For Around 35 Minutes Of The Movies Time. To Summerise Things: I've Seen All Bond Movies At least 3 Times, So When I Say It Just Wasn't Good I Can Compare It In My Mind To Each And Every Movie, Each And Every Bit From Every Movie, When I Go To See A Bond Movie I Want A Fantasy World As Some Hav Written, A Fantasy World That Include All The Things You'll Find In Bond Movies, Things That Don't Appear In Other Action Movies, Lets Call It Trade Marks Of Bond Movies, And All Of Those Trade Marks Have Just Gone. 1. Craig Is A Good Actor But Doesn't Fit The Role. 2. No Q/R, Branches, No Moneypenny. 3. No Gadgets. 4. Almost No Beautiful Women, The Main Bond Girl Is Pretty, But Most Of Us Wont Remember A Second After The Movie How She Looked Like. 5. To Many Holes In The Plot, And The End Of The Movie Is Just Messy And Unreliable. * Just Left With A Feeling That The Directors, And Producers Wanted To Rap Up Things As Quick As Possible And Send It To The PR To Sell Us This Movie. To Bad That Some Cinema Critics Bought It, But That Also Tells You'll Not To Pay To Much Attention To Critics. 3/10

I've been a Bond fan for over 30 years, both books and movies. I've heard a lot of comments that this Bond is much truer to the Bond book mythos than the other recent films. This is somewhat true. In the book, Bond is gritty, somewhat cold, somewhat brutal. HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT WHY I SEE BOND MOVIES!! Bond MOVIES are about fun escapes to exotic locales, villains and heroes who are bigger than life, great humor, good gadgets, pulse-pounding action, and aspirations to do something much bigger and better than most people are called to. At this, this movie is a complete flop. Bond is cold, brutal, unfeeling. He does not enjoy good or bad times. He uses men and women as tools and toys. He finally starts to care for a character, but you don't know why. The villain is entirely uninspiring, the movie is WAAAAY too long, there are no gadgets to speak of, the action sequences are so long and unbelievable they make Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon look like a Discovery Channel documentary.

***SPOILER ALERT

There is a torture scene that, although brief, has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE in my vision of a Bond film. Unfortunately, the torture scene merely continues the torture that this movie was to me.

I desperately wanted to enjoy this movie. I was simultaneously scared and bored.

Too bad.

I'm probably one of the few people writing a review for this film that can't actually call themselves a James Bond fan. In fact, this is my first review of a Bond film, as the couple I've seen ages ago predate my involvement with IMDb. So I can't competently comment on who my favorite Bond actor of all time is, though I'm kind of partial to Roger Moore and Sean Connery. See, I told you it's been a long time.

So I approach this film the way I do a lot of action thrillers, and that's with the greatest suspension of disbelief allowable given the impossibility of any human being having the ability to withstand the type of punishment that goes with the very first foot chase scene in this film, not to mention the impossible stamina one would need to run an endless obstacle course consisting of city street traffic, construction work sites and moving cranes. But it all looks exciting, and so for a mindless entertainment experience this works on a visceral level. What intrigued me more was the complex script writing that centered on Bond's (Daniel Craig) attempt to put away Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), funder of terrorists and all around bad guy. But then, things went awry again with that four story building that crumbled into dust for no logically coherent reason.

I had to gasp though, being aware of James Bond's 'future' exploits, that he was about to quit the Double-0 ranks, but quickly realized that there had to be one more plot twist coming that would put everything back into some semblance of normalcy. No disappointment there, as the film ended on a perfectly ambiguous note regarding Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), and a commitment to persevere as Bond, James Bond. You know, I think I'll have to go back and watch a few more of these flicks. I think I might be missing something.

So I saw the now Bond yesterday. First of all this is NOT a Bond movie. It is just another action movie like there are a hundred more.

If I don't look at the casting of Daniel Craig as Bond the movie still sucks big time. Every time I saw Craig I didn't believed him as Bond.

The one-liners in the movie are most of the time absolute not funny and most of the time they are totally misplaced.

What makes a Bond movie a Bond movie? Everybody knows; the Bond gadgets. A Bond movie without it isn't a Bond movie. I waited the entire movie for Q (John Cleese) But he didn't came.

I rated this movie 1, but even that is too much. To bad you can't give a 0. I don't understand why this movie had such a high rating. It is not a Bond movie. There is nothing in there that gives it the Bond tough.

**SPOILER** When Bond gets poised and goes in cardiac arrest that is totally wrong. In all the 20 Bond movies nobody of the villains has ever succeed in doing something like this.

When Bond is captured and is tortured by Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) it is not right. He makes idiotic jokes that aren't funny. **END SPOILER**

After seeing this Bond I really misted the real Bond Sean Connery. He is still the best Bond that I have seen.

If you want to see a other action movie you could go to Casino Royale. But if you want to see a Bond movie go rent Dr. No or an other older Bond movie.

Conclusion Casino Royale (2006) is a blockbuster movie to earn money. People who say that if you weren't a fan of Bond whit this movie you will. Well they are right, this isn't a tradition Bond movie. It is a action movie like so many more.

To quote Sadusky (Harvey Keitel) in National Treasure: Somebody has to go to jail for this.

So after 4 years Bond is finally back in action and what better way to reboot the franchise than to start the story off with Fleming's original novel of the same name. This entry sees Bond play in a high stakes poker game to stop Le Chiffre from organising terrorism in a bid to control the world's stock market. From each stunning location we get a sense that time is of the essence. When Bond journeys through Madagascar to stop a bomb maker (who can free run) we feel that Bond has trouble keeping him in his sights and that is spectacular to watch as the greenery is definite eye candy and glorious to behold.

First off though, Daniel Craig is a ruthless and exhilarating Bond and whilst he may not be as cool as Pierce Brosnan or as humorous as Roger Moore, one thing for sure he has brought his own interpretation to the much loved character of 007, and boy is it welcome!

Each action element just adds to the adrenaline and tension of the scene. From the fight on the stairs to the collapse of a house in Venice; the stunts vary adding to the pure excitement of each scene and Daniel Craig's on screen confidence makes it all the better to behold.

As for the musical score, this has to be David Arnold's greatest score to date with the bond theme appearing only at the last scene of the entire movie, making all Bond fans shout with delight. However the greatest piece is Miami International which is surprisingly incredible to listen to and is guaranteed to keep you entertained even if it does last over ten minutes!

Also the acting is believable, even from the leading lady played by Eva Green, she handles the role superbly well. Making the character of Vesper Lynd the most complex of the entire series, Bond doesn't even go to bed with her until the last half an hour of the film! What's more is that she doesn't immediately succumb to Bond's advances and at first she seems wary. She is not as eager to see Bond as he is to see her.

Verdict: This is well and truly the best entry to a much beloved franchise, that has got back to the basics after much CGI tinkering in Die Another Day (it has the worst use of CGI ever for a Bond movie) and it feels realistic and gritty in its approach. The director (Martin Campbell) has done us proud. It's only a shame he wasn't able to direct Quantum of Solace which lacked an interesting plot and decent characterisation. All we can hope for is that Skyfall (released October 26th) can come back and make Bond fans forget about the mishaps of QoS.

10/10

There's always a rush in the air when a new James Bond film enters the theater. This movie is equally exciting as watching cheese mold. It has an action-packed beginning while in location in Madagascar. The very well-balanced bad guy on the run from Bond through a construction area, destroying everything in his path, the crane scene was quite remarkable and the actions gave us the promise of another exciting action-packed 007 film.

But instead we are treated to low-brow Bond women who provide something for the eyes, but nothing else in between, which pales in comparison to the other Bond movies 44 years before this one. The villain's blind eye bleeds is disturbing and at times it is too gross. The villain's mission is to obtain money at a gambling resort where the contestants must ante up $10 million and the winner keeping the loot all to themselves.

The plot is average at best,but the chemistry between Bond (Daniel Craig) and Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is almost non-existent, which dries up the whole Bond story. When they appear on screen together, all the action drains out a lot and the romantic story comes into place demoting the action flick into a semi-action flick. Craig shows what he's truly of acting wise in an airport scene where Bond prevents a huge plane from getting off the ground.

I was eagerly awaiting for Q to show up and show Bond another one of his/her kooky gadgets. But not in "Casino Royale". No Q, no gadgets. Instead we're treated to a serenade of Judi Dench's M moan and groan and has no feel for the movie at all. Lady Dench, stick to period pieces. Many other scenes just drag on keeping your finger on the fast forward button.

I don't mean to sound harsh, the intentions to keep up with the modern stage and keeping up the traditions to the Ian Fleming novel is no piece of cake. "Quantum of Solace" was an improvement from "Casino Royale", it's just that in the James Bond movies is either a hit or a miss. This one is an unfortunate miss.

The long scenes almost put me to sleep (fortunately I wasn't too far from the coffee kettle at the time). The first half hour were some of the bests moments in "Casino Royale". But then, it just faded gradually along the way. It's a shame, really.

The Casino fights is poorly choreographed and not very accurate. You have the baddies kicking Bond's ass and Bond fighting back. From the bond films of long ago, (especially the Roger Moore era), the fight scenes were campy, but at least the Bonds of yesteryear's features an unsympathetic Bond. This sweet and sensitive Bond made me cringe.

The locations were fun to watch, it was the banal acting and the incoherent chemistry with the Bond women that forces us to search elsewhere for a super-spy movie who relies on his resources to outshine the evil-doers, with nifty gadgets that leaves you with a satisfying aftertaste begging you to watch this movie again.

You know what? Keep looking! You won't find it here. It had real good premise but failed miserably in many places. If you must, see it at least once, but don't expect much.

I am not a Bond fan. I have watched most of the Bond movies, and to me virtually all of them are silly and nonsensical to the point of the preposterous. Sometimes they try to put some comedy and satire in there to make the lack of realism more endurable, but this rarely works. It consistently panders too much to the lowest common denominators.

And it's not because I'm not a fan of far-out action movies - I am! I happily watch a lot of Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Seagal and Jackie Chan movies, and I thought Mission Impossible II was a better Bond movie than any Bond movie. And hell, so was The Bourne Identity.

But this new Bond movie? You know, I thought, from the almost uniformly good reviews and the obvious change in style, that Casino Royale might be different from the other Bond movies. And it was: It was bad for a lot of different reasons. Well, and a few of the same reasons, too.

I admit it had acting. But it had absolutely no story. And it was *incredibly* dull. Most of the action was not impressive, and the love story ended up not working. It would have worked if Vesper Lynd had been in earnest league with the bad guys. But she wasn't. She was forced into it. So why does that constitute an immense betrayal that lays the foundation for Bond's "disposable" attitude to women? Nope, it doesn't make a lick of sense. And this was the only thing in the movie with any chance of making sense, since we don't know who the bad guys were and obviously aren't supposed to care. This is immensely bad writing. I left the theater with a feeling of having taken absolutely nothing worthwhile with me from it. Even as aptly-called "empty entertainment", this movie had nothing to offer me, and it left me largely indifferent.

Note that in knocking this movie I'm not knocking Daniel Craig. I always thought he'd do a good job, and he did do a decent one. But he's not charismatic enough to truly carry a movie as superficial as this, the way it badly needed to be held aloft. And as for Mads Mikkelsen, of whom, as a Dane, I am naturally a huge fan; his decent performance did little to sway me in this movie's favor. He was intense in the torture scenes, but the poker scenes were themselves dangerously close to audience torture.

And as for Eva Green - hate to say it, but she's just not my type. She doesn't do a thing for me. She's kinda pretty, sure, and she can act, sure, but she's not my idea of a good-looking woman. (She did resemble Ursula Andress - who's not my type, either - a good deal, though.) She exudes a kind of aristocratic daintiness that I just have zero interest in. Now, young Jacqueline Bisset as Ms. Goodthighs in the 1967 movie - *she* was a sizzler! Anyway - another problem I have with the new Casino Royale was the drowning scene. Was a disgustingly protracted death scene really necessary? No, and it was, in my opinion, in damn poor taste.

Sorry, but my personal experience of watching this movie was that it was almost as dull as drying paint, and had less coherence. The only thing that was remotely well done was the acting and some of the characterization, and that's not even enough for this movie to approach mediocrity. I am at a complete loss to understand why it garnered rave reviews from virtually all quarters. Did the reviewers see a different movie than I did? Must have. To see here on IMDb that half of everybody who watched this so far have rated it a 10 out of 10 is the closest I have ever come to suspecting really foul play with the ratings here. I have great difficulty believing that so many people found this movie so good. Or maybe this movie is simply seen mostly by people who have no discerning bone in their body, and can only rate movies either a 1 or a 10. Barring a conspiracy, that has to be the explanation.

3 out of 10.

OK, I just came back from the cinema and I have to admit, that I am a huge James Bond fan and saw all 20 previous movies again in about last 3 weeks as a preparation for this one. So all my statements will be affected by that.

At first (again) the decision to make Craig new Bond is not good I believe. After watching the movie I am definitely convinced. Craig misses the style of Brosnan and Connery and becomes the with Dalton the worst Bond in the series.

Second thing that I could not bare and thought I will leave the theater - the dialogs (especially between Bond and Vesper) - some of them are just like cutted out from some cheap soap opera from 80s.. If there will be a poll about shooting the script writer, I will vote for yes.

Third thing - the plot - I mean I really enjoy the poker game and I like movies about it, but this? The half movie was like - oh, let's play some more poker, it is so much fun and excitement.. Not really my cup of coffee. Anyway multiple endings, absolutely not consistent plot with too many ups and downs..

Fourth thing - product placement. I know, that most of the movies has it, but this was like - oh look at all those Sony Vaio notebooks, that all secret agents have, oh look, he use Omega instead of Rolex ( -__- ) and of course all the vehicles around the world are Ford concern (Ford, Jaguar, Volvo, Aston Martin, Land Rover..)

Well it was good action movie with some dude, trying to be cool as James Bond, but he just doesn't have it. Pity, that it is a part of the series.

Anyway it is still a bit better, than the last movie Die Another Day. (that one is worst on my list, this one a place above - second worst from all.

6/10 (only for being average action movie and hoping to be better next time.) ________________________ Volvo rulezzz!!!